Comments on: Does the truth hurt?

By: Sadman

Sadman — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:22:29 +0000

In response to Outraged (17/2/10), I would ask two questions; were the concerns legiimate?
Also had the people concerned put the same questions to council?

It would seem to me, when looked into, most of those “concerns” indicate a lack of understanding
on the part of those concerned.

Sadman

By: Outraged

Outraged — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:52:49 +0000

How is the Chronicle targetting the council when members of the public are approaching the Chronicle with legitmate concerns?

By: Sadman

Sadman — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:01:51 +0000

Sue,

You must remember there are two sorts of people in our world; those that think and those that think threw their hip pocket.
Then we have the fear factor; people so deep in debt that they cannot make any decision if it effects their budget.

Then we have the developement industry and it is well aware of all of the above and plays on peoples weaknesses.
Free thinking and democracy died many yeas ago.

Sadman

By: sue

sue — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:23:21 +0000

I only speak for myself but thought out loud that The Independent is the only alternative if APN papers keep targetting Council unfairly because I continue to believe that the negative press was designed to provide an outcome beneficial to developers at the expense of the wider community. The Chronicle is simply using its power to influence elected members for an outcome that it wants.
I believe the media should be informing the community accurately and fairly representing both sides to any issue. If it doesn’t represent both sides then, in my book, it is showing bias and fails in its duty to inform. Oh but I almost forgot that the newspapers these days are not there to provide us with news and comment and entertain and inform us they are there to profit. At what cost I wonder? But yes I read the Independent. It is free, widely circulated and advertising in that paper usually is better received than advertising in the Chronicle.
As an aside it seems that the Council from where the new Chronicle Editor, Mr Peter Chapman hails from, decided to simply stop responding to anything asked of them by their local newspaper as they suffered a similar treatment. What a sad day when a Council loses confidence in its local paper. Especially one with a long and esteemed tradition as our Chronicle. Another two people I know, one who which has subscribed to the paper for many, many years, tell me they have cancelled their sub.

By: Patricia

Patricia — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:06:43 +0000

“…comments posted here that suggest the councillors intend to pick up their toys and go and play with the Indy.”

I must admit that this is how I interperated Sue’s post as well.

By: sue

sue — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:27:40 +0000

Fraserwatch thank you for your comments. I do get right of reply being the boss of this blog and can see the logic in your reasoning. I disagree however with your comment that Council abhors the publicity. What I abhor is the inaccurate reporting, sensationalism and downright untruths that pretends to be ‘reporting’. I will defend Council time and time again from this type of sensationalist cr*p! I don’t believe the debate has been healthy or productive in fact I feel it has been counter productive and destructive for the community.
But you make a good point about being defensive. I prefer the motto that the best defense is to attack but attacking is not easy and I’m not naturally mean and nasty etc… But I do have an opinion obviously and enjoy a good debate so please keep the comments flowing.
PS I believe donations should be banned but if they were banned I reckon they would just go underground anyway.. It is a concern to me when the development industry is about the only major donator of funds to politicians. I agree with you that if someone gives me something ‘for free’ my attitude to them would be different than if I had never received anything. I simplify my life by not accepting donations but then again, I don’t attract many offers!

By: fraserwatch

fraserwatch — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:52:32 +0000

Councillor Brooks,

You want more good news published in our local paper, but like it or not, most readers want a balance of both the “good news” and whatever else is happening in our region and in our Council, good and not so good. If we want just good news re Council, we have its own website , no adverse comment or contentious reports unless it is forced to issue a media release
when stirred up by such as the Chronicle’s most recent item re a development “black hole”.

Whether you like it or not, this article, and others like it have led to wide public discussion, unscheduled Council media releases, and a better public understanding of the issues. This is a positive result, even though Council abhors the publicity.

Councillors are quite happy to use the “Chronicle” when it suits them. Take the recent opportunity Councillors were given to rate their own Council performance. All gave themselves exceptionally high marks. What really worries me is that Councillors probably believe their own score is warranted. The true mark will become obvious when next the ratepayers have their say at the next election. A lot of fresh blood would help the Fraser Coast .

Getting back to the so called “black hole”, I agree with you that the current conditions relating to development applications are fair to all concerned. The Chronicle is obviously pushing the developers barrow, assisted from the sidelines I’m sure, by some of your fellow Councillors. In a recent post I made to your Blog, I referred to the financial assistance some such Councillors accepted from development related sources. The following link from Council’s own website will clarify my concerns.

http://www.frasercoast.qld.gov.au/council/documents/Registers%20of%20Interests%20for%20Councillors%20Gifts%20Hospitality%20and%20Memberships.pdf

Maybe it’s payback time!

Congratulations to you personally for being the sole Councillor willing to comment on matters which are of some concern to some ratepayers. Your fellow Councillors seem to prefer to bunker down and hope that all the adverse comment will blow away. It’s good that at least one of you has the guts to stand up and have something to say on contentious matters. Be careful though, some are wondering whether you have a portfolio other than the environment, that of apologist for and defender of questionable Council actions/inactions. The public would dearly like to hear from some of your other associates.

Keep up your communication, it’s appreciated, but please try to be less obviously biased towards all that Council does.

By: sue

sue — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:05:40 +0000

I was simply wondering how to get the Council version of events, as well as accurate stories about all the good things we do out into the public eye. It is very difficult to do via the Chronicle but hey I’m really not suggesting other than the Independent as a good source of accurate info. Yes it does use press releases etc but it also now carries stories written by journalists. I for one like some good news to balance the bad. Please don’t forget you can all register for Council enews also via the homepage..

By: Sadman

Sadman — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:41:13 +0000

Outrage,

I love your analogy to the old story, how does it go? I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll bow your house down, or some thing
like that. I’d agree the Independent is the puff and the Chronicle is the huff and blow, between them both our houes
might tumble.

Oh for an seaching, investigative paper, but then in this region it would not sell. In fairness to both Peter and Nancy
they catered to the local taste.

Sadman

By: Outraged

Outraged — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:23:54 +0000

So now you want the Chronicle to be full of puff pieces like the Independent? The Independent isn’t an example of positive media – it is almost wholey and solely press releases and no real stories. But I guess that would suit the council – to never, ever be questioned. At least the Chronicle has a go and challenges the council and other organisations in the area. It’s not the role of the Chronicle to inspire rainbows and lollipops. Maybe there should be a bit of acknowledgement of that from the council.

It should also be acknowledged that it was the council, and no one else, who set a budget of $7.7 million for infrastructure charges. The global economic crisis hit in 2008. Surely adjustments in expected numbers could have been made by the council for the 09/10 period before this figure was released if they thought it would not be accurate? Otherwise why shouldn’t the Chronicle question why only a paltry $300,000 has been secured? Is the council working hard enough to encourage development? Surely this is a legitmate question. The council is kidding itself if it thinks otherwise.

Aside from the development stories, other council related stories have also grabbed my attention. One was the car park at Xavier that was locked before school started, causing traffic chaos. The council apparently didn’t see that coming when they made the decision to close the car park. A little bit of foresight is apparently too much to ask from this council.