Some people's minds lean more toward dark conspiracies than mine does.
It caught me totally off guard earlier today when a friend suggested to me a reason why the Joplin Globe has not mentioned, for six days now, the admission of child sex criminal Ronny Justin Myers, a former employee of the Joplin R-8 School District, that he had pornographic photos of 10 Joplin students on his laptop.
"The Globe has known about it the whole time," my friend said. His idea, and as I noted earlier, he is prone to conspiracy theories, is that C. J. Huff let the Globe in on the information that somehow convinced Editor Carol Stark that it could serve no good to tell the public, after all, the photos had already been taken and Ronny Myers was in custody, and it could do much damage to the school district and its program of giving laptops to every high school student since Myers' job included monitoring those computers.
While you never totally rule anything out, I am inclined to disagree with my friend.
I cannot believe that Carol Stark or anyone else at the Joplin Globe would make a conscious decision seven months ago to keep the parents of Joplin High School students, and the students themselves for that matter, from finding out that, contrary to the public statements made in February, Ronny Justin Myers did indeed have access to students, just not the kind of access most people think about when you are talking about someone who was willing to meet an underage girl at Northpark Mall for sex.
What I can believe is that the Globe could very well be playing the same games with the Joplin R-8 School District that it did with Missouri Southern State University during the Bruce Speck years. Publisher Michael Beatty wrote the infamous e-mail telling Speck that he was pulling bulldog reporter Greg Grisolano off the MSSU beat, stopping Sunshine Law requests, and offering advice on how to manage the news.
Beatty even suggested meetings with Mrs. Stark to go over a laundry list of positive news stories.
I can thoroughly see meetings in which Beatty and Mrs. Stark meet with C. J. Huff to plan how coverage of Joplin Schools will be handled. Considering that in the six days since I revealed the existence of the sentencing memorandum for Ronny Justin Myers, the Globe has run three positive page-one stories about the school district.
Today's story, headlined "Well-wishers leave messages at new Irving" begins like this:
Seated on the floor of the new Irving Elementary School, Carmen Martinez wrote a simple prayer in Spanish that asked for blessings on the school's teachers and students and for angels to protect the building."
"This is my wish," she said.
As the new school nears completion, administrators on Monday invited the school's parents, faculty, and Bright Futures business and faith-based partners to write inspiring messages to the students on the hard concrete floor that will become the school's main entryway.
The story was written by the Globe's education reporter, Emily Younker, but it might as well have been handed to her by the school's public relations department.
So, yes, I can see the possibility of another sellout like the one the Globe did with Missouri Southern.
Of course, there is another possibility that makes just as much sense. The Globe is following the same approach it has at other times when the Turner Report., or more recently Inside Joplin, has beaten it to a story. Ignore it and act like it really isn't that important. After all, if this story was a major one, wouldn't it have already been covered by the city's alleged newspaper of record?
If the Joplin Globe thinks that someone the government wants to send away for 25 years as a child predator having pornographic photos of Joplin students on his laptop- when this was a man whose job was monitoring student laptops- is not news, then it must not be news.
Only it is.
And then there was a time when the Joplin Globe would be all over this story. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
It is unbelievable, isn't it? Or at least, we wish it was. With CJ and Co., and the Globe, though, nothing is too low to believe. Some of the kids are covering their cameras with tape. The techs don't like it. Too bad at my house. Should've gotten books...
ReplyDeleteApparently so. Thanks for listening.
ReplyDelete7:00--
ReplyDeleteDoes that make you a wacko? You're listening with the best of us!
It is a shame that nothing has changed yet. But hope springs eternal.
Randy often meets my criteria for being a "wacko bird" (on the Left, of course :-), but he's right a whole lot more often than a stopped clock.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very important catch of his, and my only concern is that he hasn't been able to figure out more ways to raise hell about it.
This does not yet appear to be as bad as the Lower Merion School District one, where the administrators were up to their ears in the webcam spying and stupidly arrogant enough to reveal it ... but then again, without any investigation, let alone transparency, we don't know how bad the situation is.
We just have a strong and justified suspicion that the privacy controls were inadequate, against, I grant the district, a worst case threat, a system administrator who was an unknown sex criminal.
It's hard to apply the quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will guard the guards themselves?) principle to system administrators, witness the Snowden mess, and costly. But it should be an absolute requirement for a school district that's moving so heavily to mobile computers, the behind the scenes work is one of the things that makes these sorts of innovations expensive, and if you can't afford to do it right you shouldn't be doing it to begin with.
It's hard to believe the kids aren't all aware by now. I'd think their parents would storm the AD Building. They should. I'd be requesting one of those sessions with the Board, and I wouldn't take no for an answer. This is just wrong.
ReplyDeleteI just wish we could toss the things and start over. Too much bad has happened because of them. Stupid idea carried out in a stupid way.
ReplyDeleteRandy, I know it is only one person's opinion, but the biggest issue I have with your blog and Inside Joplin is your credibility.
ReplyDeleteFor example, on IR you have a video posted the reads "first chopper footage of the Joplin tornado" and it was posted on YouTube this morning.
Incorrect, the first Joplin chopper footage posted on YouTube was posted on the day of tornado, has over 500,000 views and it's the same video you have posted that you claim was first posted today.
Do not let facts get in the way of a good story.
Second issue on credibility, you have been dismissed from the Carthage Press and Joplin R8, yet each time, it is never your fault. You have gone to such lengths (books, blogs, video, etc.) with any and all mediums and to anyone who will listen to make your case, yet, I still ask the question and await an answer, when are you going to take responsibility for your actions? Two businesses that we here before you and will be here long after you are gone can't be completely, 100 percent at fault. There had to be some fault on your behalf, when will you own up to it?
Credibility is yours to earn.
I am always impressed with people who criticize my credibility without checking to see what I actually said. I never said this was the first time this had ever been seen anywhere. I made no such statement. What I said, quite clearly, is that it was labeled as the first chopper footage and that it was posted on YouTube this morning. Those are both accurate comments. I never said, not one time, that this was the first time it had been seen anywhere. I thought it was something that would interest the readers, and in that assumption, I was correct.
ReplyDeleteLol Randy. Your posts on some of these Joplin subjects must be stepping on some toes. They shout it louder and louder. We see nothing! It is Randy's fault. There is nothing to see. WE SEE NOTHING!!! Just like so many times before, they can't (and won't) see what is right in front of them.
ReplyDeleteI notice that the subject of this post (lack of coverage of undisputed facts revealed by the sex offender sentencing report) is ignored to attack the messenger. This has been seen before.
Let's not forget, Randy was also fired from the Diamond school district.....well technically he was riffed but let's be honest, he was fired. O for 3 and it is still not your fault? The above poster does have a very valid point.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not he was fired not really a relevant point, it's a technique called an "ad hominem" fallacy. It involves attacking the speaker instead of responding to his points.
ReplyDeleteYou can read more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The gist of making good arguments is reason. When you're opposed to an argument, what you want to do is actually dismantle their reasoning.
Attacking the person rather than dismantling their argument gives the impression that the opposition can't respond to the argument and so has to resort to spurious tactics.
Here's a list of other kinds of fallacies. It's fun reading in general:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Maybe he just knows the right questions to ask that admin don't like!
ReplyDeleteMaybe he just knows the right questions to ask that admin don't like!
ReplyDeleteMr. Turner isn't the only one that can ask the questions. He is probably better at getting the answers though.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few:
1. What was the actual job description for the job at the time Ronny Justin Myers was hired?
2. Did that description or his position change during the course of his employment at Joplin R-8? If so, how?
3. What was the chain of command above Ronny Justin Myers; and how many of those had the actual responsibility to know both Ronny Justin Myer's position, his job description, and actual officially assigned activities?
4. In short, who should have known about Ronny Justin Myers general job activities (which apparently contradict the statement issued) but didn't? Or perhaps they did know that Myers' duties might contradict the statement; if so, what did they do about it? Did anyone employed by Joplin R-8 actively or passively conceal something which the Joplin R-8 students and parents may wish they had known?
5. At what point (if ever) did C.J. Huff become aware of any of this? Is it possible he learned about this from reading the Turner Report or Inside Joplin? Are these sites not blocked for the administration?