Comments on: Chronicle commentary

By: HappyMan

HappyMan — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:06:36 +0000

I can’t say that I’ve taken that much interest in the score cards, but I would like to make an offering on this education city.

USQ it seems wants to be the center for economic development. At best it is a third tier university, with little in the way of credentials for what they aim to achieve. To build something from scratch will take an excessive amount of money, and it is my hope that council will not be its deep pockets.

Sadman – I must admit a certain ignorance, but am willing to learn!

By: Sadman

Sadman — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:47:48 +0000

Sue,

I read the Chronicle’s score card, thought about it and then read it again.
Try reading it without looking at where the people live, then look at where
they come from after.

Then try and balance what the different people have said, we have state
issues mixed up with local issues, we have popularity mixed up with
performance. Rampant parochialism totally unrelated to performance and,
I am sorry to have to say this, a total lack of understanding of council.
Perhaps more people should attend meetings.

Sadman

By: Sadman

Sadman — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:41:27 +0000

Ben,
I agree with you in total, many letters now finnish with “name & address supplied”.
These are in my view no better than SMS’s and could even be written by Chronicle staff?
There also appears to be some bias regarding Letters to the Ed as some far exceed the
250 word limit !!
But Peter obviously has his own agenda, I wonder what it is?

Sadman

By: Ben Collingwood

Ben Collingwood — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:57:25 +0000

I looked for the comment page in the thought I’d do some ‘marking’ myself but could not find it.

I’ve enjoyed the Chronicle more since Peter came to town – its former editor was part of the problem holding back our region including her much talked about referral to the incumbents as ‘a safe pair of hands’.

At least now issues are being raised in a public forum not just on blog sites or at the pub. Even though some days they rush stories through, councillors and the CEO have the right of reply.

Peter might not always get it right and sometimes he will stir up issues that really should be left alone but at least it is raising awareness in the community of issues others feel strongly about.

What I am disgusted with is that the Chronicle is allowing everyone to comment on the councilors under pen names. I feel this completely discredits the validity of every comment posted. If contributors and the Chron were serious, they’d use full names as they require on letters to the editor generally.

Just my thoughts.