The Globe spent time and likely a considerable amount of money in its successful attempt to get the complete Loraine report released.
With much fanfare, it was released Friday afternoon. Perhaps I am just reliving my newspaper days, but if I went to that much trouble to get the document opened and had all of that information at my disposal, I would certainly have had more than one story in the newspaper. I would have had pages filled with the information, calling in every reporter available and having them call anyone and everyone.
That is not what happened in the Saturday Globe.
The Globe story was at the top of page one with the headline "Investigator focused on Rohr."
Tell us something we don't already know.
And then the story spends just as much space, perhaps more, providing Rohr's answers to everything that he was accused of. Those certainly had a place in the story, but as usual, with the Joplin Globe in the Carol Stark regime, there seemed to be more interest in preserving Mark Rohr's reputation than there was in getting the new information to the readers.
Hopefully, the Sunday Globe will contain more information about some other matters which are of much importance since at that point we will only be two days away from the municipal election.
Consider the following:
-Anyone who has a chance to read through these documents will quickly realize something that was not touched upon by the Globe- it was the investigation of Mike Woolston that led to Rohr. Loraine did not set out to get Rohr, but all roads led to the former city manager. Woolston vouched for master developer Wallace-Bajjali after vetting the firm, he then became involved with Charlie Kuehn in real estate deals that should not have involved a sitting city council member. Their involvement with Wallace-Bajjali and Rohr's connection to Wallace-Bajjali put Rohr squarely in the spotlight.
-There is no mention in the Globe today of the disciplinary action Rohr took against Parks and Recreation Director Chris Cotten for taking the initiative and interesting the El Paso Diablos into bringing their minor league baseball team to Joplin. Rohr told Cotten that any such plan should go through Wallace-Bajjali. Wallace-Bajjali had not been hired as the city's master developer at that point. Cotten's hard work, according to information uncovered in the Loraine investigation, saved the city of Joplin $25 million. Cotten should have been praised; instead he was in danger of being fired.
-The Globe report also fails to mention the critical role played by its own editor Carol Stark, whose name is mentioned frequently. It is no wonder Stark refused to be interviewed by Loraine.It becomes clear reading the documents that Rohr was feeding information to Stark about a number of subjects and used her in his battle against Councilman Bill Scearce. How else can you explain one story after another about Scearce's connection to a gambling operation? It was overkill on what, at best, should have been a minor story...if it was a story at all. The documents also note the Globe's stories and editorials decrying the division on the council, an interesting point since the Globe was taking sides, not against a small faction that was standing in the way of progress, but against the majority of the elected body. The documents made Carol Stark seem more like a puppet or a loyal attack dog than the editor of the area's newspaper of record.
Anyone who has read the documents knows there is much, much more.
But is it not just the Loraine investigation that casts suspicion on the role the Globe has played in this controversy that has rocked the city of Joplin for months.
Again, I point to the powerful investigative reporting of the Globe's Andy Ostmeyer in the October 10, 2004, edition when he thoroughly covered Mark Rohr's history. Nearly everything that Ostmeyer wrote about happened again in Joplin. The pattern was laid out convincingly in his articles. When you add that to the contents of the Loraine investigation, it completely knocks the props out from under Mark Rohr.
I would certainly hope that the Globe will take advantage of this one final opportunity to get the story right. If not, there is no doubt that the newspaper has played a key role in whipping up the frenzy of support for Rohr, without providing the context that should have been provided. And those choices appear likely to sway the city council elections.
I have detailed for the past several months one story after another the Globe has not covered about the Joplin R-8 School District. On the few times these stories have been touched on- district travel, teacher turnover, school finances- the Globe has turned its pages over to C. J. Huff.
How many other people in positions of power in Joplin and Jasper County are calling the shots when it comes to what news appears in the Joplin Globe?
8 comments:
And don't overlook former Mayor Shaw: he was Rohr's "counselor" (marriage?). Shaw led the "we love you Mark Rohr" exit party. A real conflict of interest there as well.
Rohr: rogue employee, waster of city money, manipulator of the press and the council, and tied into the "so-called elite" who want the arts center promised by Wallace Bajjali. Thick as thieves is a good term of art; Music Man is an appropriate analog.
I, too, was surprised by the Globe's limp headline on Saturday morning: "Investigator focused on Rohr." And even more surprised that there was only the one story. I was expecting three or four stories. Hopefully, the Globe will have much more on Sunday. I would also expect a column from editor Carol Stark explaining her actions in the entire saga.
Stark hasn't written many editorials lately about stepping out of the shadows and not wallowing in the muck.
When the story fits her agenda, it's "We have to go where the news is, even if it's unpopular!"
When the story would go against her agenda, it's "Innuendo and rumor are not news!" and "Anonymous sources are not credible!"
Both are selectively applied rationalizations that depend on who's feeding her the info. Her definition of "credible source" appears to relate more to whether or not she likes them personally.
She never revisited the Rohr history or covered the abuse reports until after the fact, despite the fact that documentation existed - yet did not hesitate to loudly ruin the reputation of Ron Erwin with multiple stories when the police were exploring a lead, one that was ultimately dismissed.
Surely Rohr's/Speck's/Huff's troubles are of more significance to the public interest? Given that Speck was given the heave-ho, coverage from the Chart was squashed, and infamous emails were exchanged between Beatty/Stark/Speck, bias has been demonstrated to play a role in Stark's decision-making.
Similarly with the Globe coverage that is consistently pro-Rohr. As with Speck, they include just enough AFTER the fact (when the relevant parties move away) to make it seem unbiased, but the truth and timing are clear to anyone who pays attention, not just to Turner Report readers.
Stark continues to believe that her farts don't stink, not so much because her nose is in the air but rather because she's grown accustomed to the smell. She actually believes her brand of "journalism" is journalism. Those gases must be hypnotic.
The Sunday Globe is like all other editions of the Globe: disappointing. The most pathetic paper in the world. Just before the elections, with corruption from the city council to the school board, the Globe runs a story on the front page about a woman with cancer fearing a return to prison because of her illegal drug habit. I pity anyone with cancer, I truly do, but is that the story that is most vital to the well being of the entire community? No. That is a human interest story that could have been featured in another section. Stark can't put the released investigation where it belongs because then she must reveal just how manipulative she has been in the dealings of Rohr, Woolston, and also the schools. Millions and millions of dollars were there for the using after the tornado. Unfortunately, it appears that much of it was used to the betterment of a few instead of the many, and the area's paper of note enabled that to happen.
I noticed that in the Saturday edition the Globe managed to get yet another tear-choked (gag me) photo of Huff in a tornado-related picture, this time in Moore. We want pictures of our CHILDREN in an event that was created, supposedly, for our CHILDREN. I have my suspicions, because of the timing just before the elections, that this altruistic effort to have children taking books to other children affected by tornadoes was another manipulation by Central Office. Why did Huff have a school day to devote to this when his district is falling apart due to his mismanagement, not the tornado? I'd think he'd have plenty to do, but maybe not, now that all the money is spent and Angie isn't there anymore to tell him what to do. This is the most pathetic mess any district has ever been in. Why isn't the Globe covering that? I'm hoping he just horned in on the efforts of these children, and the teacher didn't get pushed into this and that he didn't take advantage of the children to promote himself. He's not above that, for sure.
Huff, Flowers, and Landis scare me. There are no limits to what they will do in order to stay in power. So the next question is, why? Huff may get paid overly well, but the other two presumably work for free. Since Flowers couldn't discuss school financing or give any details about how he would improve things (he'd have to admit there were problems, then), I don't believe he's in it for the betterment of education. We need a full-fledged investigation in R8, for the betterment of the whole community.
The saddest part of the paper to me is the manipulative ad placed in the paper by the Joplin Progress Committee. They have their name down in a corner. their pet picks for Council across the top, then the school board candidates they endorsed at the bottom. They encourage voters to select from "three of the five candidates," failing to mention that there are two more candidates out there. A more honest ad would've said "Pick three of these candidates that we endorsed."
But, when did honesty and ethics ever count in this race?
In all the places I've lived, I've never seen a paper that deliberately set out to let its community be hurt by those in power. I've seen some that let their political leanings get the better of them, but not one that seemed to just out and out protect, and seemingly promote, corrupt officials. What is the Globe getting from that? Once again, where has all the money gone? Someone's palms are getting greased, you can bet on that.
Post a Comment