It was nothing new for veterans of MSSU Board meetings to hear a lawyer go off on a tangent and begin raving when things don't go his way, but this was the first time in recent memory that it was not done by someone with double initials.
The transcript of Ewing's soliloquy is printed below:
"My work presently as county prosecutor is driven by facts, by data and by evidence. So too will my work on this board be driven by facts, data and evidence and it has to be so because good decisions can only be made with accurate information.
I have a couple of things that I’d just like to comment on that have caused me a little bit of concern that appeared in the 26 of February edition of The Chart newspaper. On the front page below the fold…the executive editor noted my appointment to the board and then the last sentence of the article reads, “Board Chairman Rod Anderson, when notified of the appointment Tuesday by The Chart, said ‘no comment’ and hung up.”
Well, of course, my first thought is, “Okay, I don’t know Rod, is this a comment on my future status on the board?” But I called Rod and I visited with him and I understand now the circumstances that are being addressed possibly and a grievance directed at recent conduct between the press and the chairman and so I was pleased to know your ‘no comment’ was not a reflection of your opinion on me, definitely.
Now, that said, I was disappointed to learn of at least the appearance of a lack of civility on the part of certain members of the press when dealing with the board and it’s my hope that this will not be the case going forward when I’m on the board and we can talk civilly and communicate openly.
Now, on your opinion page of The Chart, several comments were printed regarding my appointment to the board and one of the comments suggests- maybe someone who had a vested interest in the university and actually cares about what is going on there- would have been a more appropriate pick. I’d be interested in seeing if Ewing actually submitted an application for the position or if it’s done off the buddy system. And it’s signed “MSSU Alumni.”
First, let me say I’d be very interested in know who you are. Unfortunately your identity is hidden by a “nom de plume" or a username. And I’d like to have the opportunity to know the facts on which you had offered such an opinion and to test any assumptions you have made based on those facts and then I can also have the opportunity to assess and test your motivations for making that kind of statement because I don’t know who you are.
My point is this to The Chart and to people in general. You have a right to free speech and to say anything you want. But put your name on it and be prepared to defend it. The Globe doesn’t publish letters to the editor without a signature, The Chart recites a similar letter to the editors policy, but apparently it didn’t apply or didn’t apply in this case to the publication of online posts so I would encourage The Chart to print real identities of those whose opinions it chooses to post.
Yes, I did submit an application for this position last year. I’ve been interested in an opportunity to serve on this board since Jane Wyman served on this board. I’ve known Jane for a couple of years and discussed the possibility clear back in the mid-90’s about starting on this.
And I’d also point out that this particular opinion was written in the first person and appeared to be singular. And if you are an individual you are an alumnus, not an alumni.
Now, at the end my comments, Mr. Ben Hinkle had a post and kudos to you Ben for putting your name on your post. It is incorrect where it states that the “composition of this board is governed by 174.060 in Missouri by statutes.” That’s not accurate. The board’s composition is governed by Missouri by statutes 174.450 and 174.453.
I don’t raise this point to be critical of Ben’s legal research, but the point to be made here is, to The Chart and others: check your facts, check your facts and check your facts. And when you are certain you have it right, check your facts again. If you print it, whether one of your staff wrote it or it appears in a letter to the editor or an online post, you are responsible as journalists for assuring that the facts stated there are accurate. And so I challenge you to challenge those inaccurate facts that are presented to you for publication. Check your facts. "
And now a message for Lynn Ewing- Grow up!
12 comments:
Well said Mr. Ewing. I teach at MSSU and stay as far away from Chart reporters as I can because they have NEVER gotten all of the quotes I've given them for a story correct. Why? Because they don't check their facts, they just proceed with sloppy reporting.
Anon 8:32:
Ewing took free shots at students without a chance for them to respond to him. That is the behavior he says he opposes. And he is a grown man.
Have you approached the editor or adviser? I worked on The Chart in the old days and we would try to tape interviews as well as take notes. Those tapes would bear out the accuracy or not of quotes.
That paper wins an awful lot of awards and I hear is currently up for a big Society of Professional Journalists editorial writing award.
Sounds like you had some bad luck. Either that or you are Dwight Douglas trolling the Internet in your pajamas.
Groucho Marx once said he shot an elephant in Dwight Douglas' pajamas, but that's a story for another time.
Jene Wyman, uh?
Mr Ewing that's enough of a recommendation to know what kind of person you are, and you demonstrated that very clearly by your tirade against the school paper.
Yes, we know Lynn... you are a lawyer, you are a prosecutor and you are tough, are you are here to teach us all a lesson...
One more jerk on the board...Jeeez.
Stick to your guns Mr. Ewing....the student publication "The Chart" is just that--a student publication with a staff that has a lot to learn. Too bad the students on board don't have any grownups to teach them about the actual responsibilities and privileges of a free press.
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end to the pompus and biased attitude at THE CHART. At least we can hope so.
Good going Mr. Ewing...call'em when you see'em
It seems odd that Randy has sided with the side that got it wrong.
If that "grownup" comment is a shot at the adviser, you might want to get to know him first. I do. And while I am from the old school and his approach is a tad informal for my tastes, from what I have observed from reading the Chart he is doing fine. He lets them make mistakes and makes them take ownership of them and he does not try to tell them what to cover or not to cover even when it gets him in hot water.
That is a pretty good lesson in the responsibilities (a free press is not a privilege, btw, but a RIGHT) of a free press.
I also know that his graduate research was in First Amendment law and the student press and received an outstanding research award from the graduate school.
I don't like everything in the Chart, either. And it has always been considered pompous and biased by SOMEONE. The Globe gets that, too.
From what I read, the paper wasn't critical of Mr. Ewing. That was a reader.
And the inaccuracy was also on the part of a reader. Incidentally, I Googled the statutes and they are kind of similar/confusing. It was an honest mistake, obviously. But Mr. Ewing implied it was willful and pervasive.
The school and the board should just ignore the Chart if they don't like the coverage. If they keep pushing, they will likely do something that lands them in the news or in court. In terms of money or image, they can't afford either one right now.
I agree with 10:35 and would also add that Ewing should have sent a letter to The Chart to deal with this. As a taxpayer and a MSSU employee I think that the BOG meeting is not the place to air this. There are too many major issues facing MSSU to waste time on this sort of thing.
Ewing is just another petulant, egotistic lawyer like you know who.
Don't be too impressed with the claim of being after facts and evidence. He is just simply a jerk, like you know who...and he demonstrated clearly at the first meeting he attended.
I'd have to take Ewing's side and say The Chart is irresponsible in almost every way imaginable when it comes to journalism. And, it all starts with an adviser that knows absolutely nothing about REAL journalism. And Randy, I would have to say your headline is a bit misleading. There wasn't a fight being picked, it was simply getting the FACTS straight, which is the MOST important thing in journalism. It's very hard to get the facts when you have a bunch of liberal and immature students running a "college" newspaper.
It was picking a fight. There was absolutely no reason for Ewing to say anything. There was no record that needed to be set straight. What we have is another case of an arrogant lawyer on the Missouri Southern State University Board of Governors. And please drop the tired old slap the liberal brand on everything. The simple fact is the kids at the Chart have been doing what they are supposed to do and and Ewing's pathetic diatribe is more of an indictment of his lack of character than of any shortcoming by anyone associated with the Chart.
If you pretend for a moment that you're a lawyer doing law homework and actually look up RSMo 174.060 on Westlaw, a few interesting things become apparent with about 30 seconds of research:
1) It is titled "Appointment to Boards," so by its plain language it does purport to govern on a topic such as, for example, appointments to boards.
2) It is "current through the end of the 2010 First Extraordinary Session of the 95th General Assembly."
3) Not only is it current, but it has been applied by the US District Court for the western district of Missouri as recently as June 2010 in Setzer v. Northwest Missouri State University Board of Regents.
You guys should try to trade back for the gay lion guy. At least when his comments were utterly without merit, he was still good for a joke or two.
Post a Comment