Were the Dailies Slanted in Favor of the NIZ?

One of my readers, "Voice of Reason," makes the case.

Time to turn the page.

In my opinion, one good thing came of this. I used to be quite worried that the role of the traditional press in this LV community was so compromised, so watered down as to be impotent. All through this story, my worst fears seemed to be proven as both "papers" provided biased pro-NIZ views. But to everyone's surprise, blogs, especially this one and Molovinsky's shed bright, uncomfortable light on this issue. They forced a discussion.

My congratulations to Bernie, Michael and to the people who commented, especially the ones who saw the EIT grab for what it was. It's enough to make a jaded citizen think that there might be hope.

One of my criticisms about the NIZ has been the complete lack of transparency concerning its creation and subsequent implementation. This has continued with its most recent amendment. The legislation was NOT available online until AFTER it had passed.

That's ridiculous.

But did anyone notice? There was a complete absence of criticism by the dailies for this lack of transparency. State legislators were allowed to run and hide on this issue until they decided themselves to make the changes.

All this makes me question supposed objectivity.

In fairness, it is the newspapers (Morning Call, specifically), that broke the story about the use of EIT. Morning Call reporters Matt Assad and Scott Kraus, along with Express Times' Colin McEvoy tried very hard to be fair.

Their reporting was fearless.

But there's an exception. Morning Call reporter Andrew McGill.

He was used for the hit pieces on the townships.

As this story evolved, editors and columnists sided with greedy developers over transparency in government. It certainly appears that they enlisted McGill to distort a meeting in Hanover Township that he did not attend and that he wrote nearly two weeks after it occurred.

Within moments of McGill's story being published at Morning Call blog Valley 610, there was an orchestrated attempt to vilify Hanover supervisors, likely from the Mike Fleck-led unions whispering n the ears of Morning Call brass.

Twenty-six comments on a blog usually known for the sound of crickets.

Then columnist Bill White went to work. He distorted this meeting even more, opining on a meeting he did not attend, based on a report from a reporter who was not there. Histrionically, he concludes that all township officials are smug. He later calls them hypocrites, too.

After this name-calling, he takes an anonymous reader to task for "accusations and name-calling."

Alrighty.

McGill follows his Hanover hit piece with another about a RTK for legal costs incurred by the Townships "to bring down the NIZ," as he puts it in his very objective style. Now everyone could talk about the waste of money. McGill never bothered file a RTK request for all the legal costs incurred by Allentown and the myriad of agencies involved.

The Morning Call also ridiculed Abe Atiyeh, caricaturing him by depicting him in a picture in the wooden hat, when he dared file a constitutional challenge and question his government. In an attempt to silence Atiyeh, Allentown almost immediately countersued.

As we know now, Atiyeh was right.

Newspapers usually stand on the side of those who are being punished for exercising their First Amendment rights. But this time, Morning Call columnist Bill White ridiculed Atiyeh further. White denies that Atiyeh's NIZ lawsuit had anything to do with it. He also ran a column calling NIZ critic Michael Molovinsky "misguided" and implying that Professor Steve Thode's concerns were hysteria.

In the meantime, there was no attempt to get answers from state reps about their willingness to change the NIZ until it was apparent from this blog that state reps were working on changes.

Also, The Morning Call, whose offices are located inside the NIZ, refuses to answer questions about whether its brass has had talks with NIZ developer J.B. Reilly over the purchase and/or lease of some or all of the building.

So yes, I think The Morning Call behaved more like a bottom-feeding blogger than a newspaper over this issue.