Hey Rob - The "All Opinions are Welcome, but Sorry no Instigators" Board

Lisa Salberg · Status: Offline

Hey Rob

JohnQ · Status: Offline

It's all about the headlines and sensationalision (hope I spelled that right!) Rob is just a small time hack doing the bidding of a comprimised rag...I guess it's a living.

karen · Status: Offline

How AWFUL is it that the press and CC criticize people who bring religion into the mix... and then PURSUE these religious leaders for their opinions on a planning matter!

Why, because these religious leaders are experts on planning and environmental issues...and just happen to be religious leaders as well?

No, because CHRIST CHURCH and their PR people are now trying to bring religion into the argument! Now that Craig isn't letting himself get drawn into pointless debates on religion, they're desperate to continue in that vein.

EVEN THOUGH CHRISTIANITY IS, I DARESAY, THE MOST WIDELY ACCEPTED AND PRACTICED RELIGION IN THE UNITED STATES, THESE PEOPLE ARE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE US APPEAR ANTI-CHRISTIAN.

This is truly the most ludicrous thing I've heard in this whole debate.

And I've heard a lot of nonsense!

JohnQ · Status: Offline

Great point karen - the cc leadership is clutching at straw...what is apparent is that cc will push this to the highest court they can...good luck with that rev...

Lisa Salberg · Status: Offline

Glad to hear that you have done some homework Rob. You should be getting those DEP records very soon. The next step is to compare the exemption letter to the plans submitted most recently. You will note that the plans submitted with the exemption were dated August 2004 and the new plans are from December 2004 and they do differ in many ways.

It is really nice to hear that you have requested these records and are working on matters of substance.

Have a nice weekend.

Lisa

Jay R · Status: Offline

If you're reading, Mr. Jennings....When will you address the constant attacks and spin being put on by supporters of the applicant over at nj.com. Here's a typical post...in the middle of a discussion of the attack on Mr. Manglione...the topic changes to the ever important 'free fields' (which is what the spinners keep trying to make this about):

3748.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. he was let go

by StarOfRT, 1/28/05 21:19 ET
Re: Rockaway Fire Dept... by jimswim22, 1/28/05

And the church made him write a letter to say he was sorry. It was great to see CC act so quickly to stand up for our fire dept. The church knows rockaway has many great things about it and that is why they want to move here and reopen the fields.

Mr. Jennings - when will we see a story about the spin being put on at nj.com that makes all those who appose the application "church-haters"...and the spin that continues to insist that this is a project about 'free fields' and a fitness center....We've been waiting so long...I know RT citizens aren't spending PR money on your paper, but perhaps a bit of journalistic integrity will allow you to write a story about the TRUTH at nj.com???? Or perhaps it's time for me to cancel my subscription and go back to reading the NY Times...

Rational · Status: Offline

Quoting Jay:

"Or perhaps it's time for me to cancel my subscription and go back to reading the NY Times..."

------------------

Most of us in RT have already done that. I am sure that many more will follow suit. You and your paper do not represent the best interest of Morris County. Maybe you and your paper should move to Essex County. Your advocacy position is certainly in their best interest! Bye DR!

-- Edited by Rational at 22:21, 2005-01-28

BR · Status: Offline

Go easy on Rob.

1. His job is to report unbiased facts, and I think he does a fairly reasonable job of that. he always gets opinions from both sides.

2. If you want to slam anyone at the DR, go after the Editor. Robs Boss, who has editing rights and final say on what is printed.

3. I don't think the DR wants to get into a P1ssing Match with the Ledger over a stupid chat forum, that less than 50 people read.

4. The DR hasn't sold out to CCs spin team. Lets hope it stays that way.

Jay R · Status: Offline

Maybe BR, but the facts remain:

When Craig made his now famous 'statement', he was in a conversation with "Matthew" - a Christ Church supporter...The article (I believe by Koloff) attacked Craig's statements (rightfully so, IMHO), but really didn't go after Matthew because he was 'anonymous'.

When 'religious humor' (in very poor taste) was cut-and-pasted from the internet, anonymously on this forum, the poster garnered a major article in the DR.

Why were "Matthew's" comments (anyone who doesn't accept Jesus will not get into heaven - including all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc...anyone who does, will - even if the 'does' guy was Hitler on his death-bed) deemed anonymous and not worthy of bashing by the DR, but the anonymous 'cut-and-paste-religious-humor' was? Clearly, there was a double-standard, and clearly, the DR picked up on BOTH incidents when notified by Christ Church's PR firm. Clearly, this PR firm is in some way controlling the story that the Daily Record tells (although, also IMHO, the DR is much more objective today on this issue then they were 9 months ago).

PLEASE Craig - do not use this thread as an opportunity to re-open the 'Matthew' debate...Leave that dead and buried....The question at hand is the eveness of reporting of the Daily Record.

Rational · Status: Offline

Quoting Jay:

"The article (I believe by Koloff) attacked Craig's statements (rightfully so, IMHO)"

---------------

You say that and then conclude by asking Mr Maier not to re-open this issue. Well, that is pretty a$$inine! The key question that you have to ask is this: who began the attack that kicked off that debacle? Did Mr Maier attack CC's religion, or did Mathew attack all non Christians including Mr. Maiers religion? I guess Judaism is fair game, but not CCism. By the DR's standard, clearly so. Clearly, if you do not want someone to react in Mr. Maiers defence, keep your trap shut about it entirely. But do not throw a hand grenade into a room and expect no reaction from the people in that room. Hmmmm- - - - but Mr. Maier, anyway can not respond. He is not available this weekend since he and his wife went to Florida this past week. But as you can see, I certainly will.

Daniel

-- Edited by Rational at 10:11, 2005-01-29

karen · Status: Offline

...and you did a fine job, and diplomatically too! Nice work, Rat!

ChuckMueller · Status: Offline

I also want to weigh in on the Daily Record's reporting. Although I agree that many times unimportant or insignificant items have been blown way out of proportion, I think they have come a long way since the beginning. I believe that Rob is trying to do a good job and for the most part does. He tries to remain objective, although I think overall the DR staff has realized which side is being honest and truthful more than not. Not too long ago I found Mr. Koloff's writing on the CC subject to be sadly lacking, almost ill-informed and mostly dirt-digging, but in his most recent piece, even he seems to have come around. So my personal opinion is kudos to Rob, Fred and even Abbott. Its just too bad they cant stop a certain (pile of) Dooty from using the letters page so often as his personal pulpit. Either that, or publish a disclaimer every time he writes a letter reminding people that the DR cant be held accountable for the total lack of common sense and intelligence of some of the letter writers.

Rational · Status: Offline

Thank you, Karen.

Lisa Salberg · Status: Offline

I was wondering why the Daily Record would even allow Mr. Doty to continue to submit letters to the editor. In his bid for mayor he wrote letters to the editor under false names in an attempt to defame his opponent. Actions such as that should result in a banning from future letters, in my opinion.

I look forward to seeing you all on Monday night and remember to bring your friends and neighbors!

Lisa

Jay R · Status: Offline

No question that the attack was initiated by "Matthew". In fact, I believe he was intentionally baiting Mr. Maier (and others) in a hope to gain a hateful statement in return - which he did. My firm belief is that "Matthew" is a paid PR person and all his statements were coldly calculated. The fact is, he won - he got what he wanted - he induced a statement that caused an article, while his own anonymous hatred quietly disappeared.

Rational · Status: Offline

Jay,

You want to hear some "hateful" stuff, find someone who is a member of CC and ask them what they think and preach about the Roman Catholic religion. I will not say, because it would be hearsay, but you all need to do it. You will get an education, folks.

Jay R · Status: Offline

In some ways, the DR is getting better. I do believe they are getting much better at reporting the facts neutrally...but...We still have statements, such as this one from Mr. Koloff's recent article:

Someone started an Internet diatribe against evangelical Christianity.

Mr. Koloff KNOWS this statement is incorrect. In his original article, he spoke of (but downplayed because of his anonminity) the "Matthew" character. Mr. Maier did not start a diatribe as Mr. Koloff well knows. He was responding to the anonymous hatred of "Matthew". I believe that Mr. Koloff's original article was written to seek the "BIG TIME" headline and I believe that his current statement denies what he knows to be the truth of the matter. Mr. Koloff wrote in his original article:

He [Matthew] could be someone who opposes the church and wants to give it a bad name.

Which makes us wonder why ANY anonymous posting can be fodder for headline articles (the Christmas comics come up)...Again, a double-standard from the Daily Record...If anonymous Matthew could have been a church opposer (please, Mr. Koloff, do not take us all for fools) and therefore not entitled to be 'hung by the rafters' by the Daily Record for his hatefull statement that provoked Mr. Maier's statement (whom the Daily Record was only too happy to 'hang'), why was the author of the "Christmas comics" cartoons - which were simply cut-and-paste from the internet, open to a news article.

IMHO, the true answer is that as Mr. Koloff stated of the recent boro church letter, it is all part of a PR campaign...

What I would like to know from the Daily Record is when the massive PR campaign at nj.com will garner an article. When will we be able to read a front page story about the attacks on VORT and on our township. I guess it can never happen because the same PR campaign that pressures the Daily Record is waging the battle at nj.com and after all, the posts of lies hatred towards our township and citizens are not backed by an expensive PR campaign.

-- Edited by Jay R at 17:21, 2005-01-30

JohnQ · Status: Offline

As I have stated - Rob will print all the truth that money can buy...prove us wrong hack...

BR · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: JohnQ
"As I have stated - Rob will print all the truth that money can buy...prove us wrong hack..."

Like I said in my previous post, don't blame Rob, blame the editor. The editor/s are the ones who are responsible for the story's content, look, feel, taste and smell. If there is any payolla involved from PR firms or the like, it is the editors, not the reporters that would be on the take.

Even Clark Kent had to answer to his Editor....and he was Superman!

JohnQ · Status: Offline

I will agree to an extent - but it comes down to credibility, does it not? It falls squarely in Robs face to stand up for reporting the truth before anything as a fair and balanced journalist, does it not? He should walk (no, run!) away from a paper or editor whom would comprimise his jounalistic integrity...in other words, grow a pair...

Rational · Status: Offline

When you are a spineless hack, you simply do as you are told.

-- Edited by Rational at 21:51, 2005-01-30