When I first began writing about the problems in the Joplin R-8 School District, I had some sizable obstacles to overcome.
Among them, would anyone take me seriously when I was writing about the numerous scandals in the school system, when my readers were fully aware of what the C. J. Huff Administration had done to me? And, of course, there was always the possibility that some of my readers thought I got exactly what I deserved.
So with each post I made about the school district, I had to be extremely careful that I did not let my less than kind thoughts about C. J. Huff, Angie Besendorfer, and the rest of them get the best of me. That meant I used the same methods to confirm my information that I used during my years as a newspaper reporter. Anything less would have stopped not only my efforts to reveal the truth about the Joplin School District, but also my efforts to create a news source that could serve as an alternative to the Joplin Globe.
It has been a long time since I have received a message from a reader claiming that I have lost my credibility with all of the posts I have written about the school district. I am sure there are people out there who believe that nothing I have printed is true, but those people are definitely in the minority.
While there have been stories that have been incredible and totally caught me off guard when I first came upon them, those stories never reached the Turner Report until I was convinced they were true and the documents that I have used with many of those stories had been verified.
You should see the stories I have not printed. I am convinced some of them are true, but you are not going to read about them here until they have been confirmed to my satisfaction.
That is why I feel the need to apologize to readers for an item I published Sunday.
I wrote a post publicizing the claim on Kim Seavy's Justice for Joplin Facebook page that he had damaging documents about the Joplin City Council, such as information about boorish behavior from city council members, including billing the city for a family meal and seeking an extramarital hookup.
A few hours after I published the post, Mr. Seavy posted his documents, which included the following:
-A 2012 bill from Charlie's Chicken to the city for $1,500
-A message purportedly posted on an adult website by a married man seeking some sex on the side and leaving the business e-mail address of a city councilman for anyone wanting to respond.
-A letter from a wig shop in Annapolis, Maryland, talking about how horribly a former mayor acted during a visit there and how she wanted special treatment because she was the mayor of Joplin. Yet the letter is from the shop and the shop is not named.
The documents were accompanied by Seavy's claims of how important they were, including this one:
This is what is known in INVESTIGATIVE circles as ORIGINAL SOURCE documents. AKA EVIDENCE.
And perhaps it is, but Seavy offers no details to flesh out what these documents mean and he hurts his credibility when he claims that he is offering more evidence than what could be found about former City Manager Mark Rohr in the Loraine Report.
Seavy is leading the fight to recall the council members who are the targets in his document release. That doesn't mean his documents are not legitimate, but unless he has something more to back them up, they don't come close to passing the evidence test.
For promoting it as if it were going to be something more. I apologize.
5 comments:
That's okay, Mr. Turner. At least you acknowledged the possible errors. That says a lot about a man's character. Many would never admit to making a mistake. I think the vast majority of us will still trust your reporting. In fact, I'm thinking most of us are already wishing for more news. We count on you to keep us updated.
The above is disingenuous drivel. Turner isn't much of a reporter and even less of an editor or school teacher. Turner is a mere agenda-driven blogger and nothing more.
Why shouldn't Turner as a blogger write pretty much anything Turner pleases? Print all manner of gossip and innuendo and rumor as Turner pleases? Censor anyone Turner likes and make whatever excuses Turner feels like making? This is Turner's free blog and Turner can do whatever Turner pleases on this blog of Turners.
When it comes to meeting, much less exceeding, the requirements of Turner's employers Turner inevitably falls short. Many readers and parents and victims of Turner's bile predicted that Turner would be fired for Turner's misconduct and rape of the truth over the years well before Turner came to the attention of Turner's employers and they got rid of Turner as best they could, and under any pretext, real or imagined. Then there was much rejoicing in the land.
This latest masturbatory self-indulgent post by Turner in which Turner exclaims that yes, Turner has scruples, yes, Turner has some sort of respect for the Truth, and that yea verily that Turner is a really really good and nice guy who loves impressionable young children and wants to turn them into little liberals stuck in a wilderness of hate and racism and pursuit of the almighty dollar. The end result is that those of us grownups with a gimlet eye guffaw while the lil' Turner-tardettes, as like above, ovulate.
The downside of this persecution/prosecution of Turner is that those who kick Turner to the curb are then given free passes while they loot the treasuries of Missouri Southern, City of Joplin and Joplin R-8 School District. Them Fearless Leaders who plowed Turner under get to thinking that we all will be eternally grateful of ridding us of this nattering nabob of negative nugatory nit-wittery that they invariably over-reach and are then purged by the grownups in turn. First Bruce Speck, then Mark Rohn, soon enough CJ Huff.
And through all this doing of the necessary, there is the incessant yapping of Turner and the Turner-tards saying "I told you so" while the Greek Chorus sings as the finale, "Count no place well-governed until you finish counting the spoons." Then, and only then, can you drop the curtain and say that that particular episode is done for the day.
Maybe.
As I understand what you did:
"I wrote a post publicizing the claim on Kim Seavy's Justice for Joplin Facebook page that he had damaging documents about the Joplin City Council, such as information about boorish behavior from city council members, including billing the city for a family meal and seeking an extramarital hookup."
The claims are noteworthy, and you reported them. After the documents are posted you now question whether the documents substantiate the claims made on Kim Seavy's Justice for Joplin Facebook Page. That is also something which should be reported.
Where do you think you went wrong? If the claims were made, and remain unsubstantiated to your satisfaction, isn't that what your posts on the subject covey to the reader? It seems like any possible fault in this (assuming that any of the claims on the referenced Facebook page are inaccurate) lies elsewhere.
I am making the claim that Seavy has a felony conviction in Washington state. That can be substantiated.
You lose all credibility with name calling.
Post a Comment