|
|
Letters to the editor: 02/21/02
|
Mascot should be least of our concernsTo the Editor:I read with sadness a letter from one of your young readers named Annie McCord, who seems to think the mascot at Cullowhee Valley School is out of place for our times and should be removed.I am a former Cullowhee High School student, Class of 1965. It troubles me greatly when these young people today want to make an issue of something so trivial when there are people starving all over the world. Annie, if you want to contribute to society, I suggest you get involved in helping others who have nothing, even in your own backyard. You could find a good number of needy people in the mountains who could use your contribution by looking in the hollows. These people don't have enough food on their table to sustain them with three good meals a day. Or read more about the world situation, which is fraught with wars continuously. Then maybe you would see just how simple minded it is to make an issue of something so silly as a little, old colonel as mascot. What bunk! Sincerely, Stephen Moore Charlotte |
|
|
Newspaper sensationalizes junkyard debateTo the Editor:On Feb. 14 The Herald ran a story under the headline "Junkyard foe receives threatening phone calls." The story reported that Michael Pritchett, a local resident who has been campaigning for regulations on junkyards, had stated in an appearance before the board of commissioners that he had received four threatening phone calls.Mr. Pritchett also stated that he had been denied service at a local business because of his views and that as a result of all this Sheriff Cruzan had advised him to carry a concealed weapon. The Herald also printed an editorial filled with angst and anger at the very thought that tactics of intimidation had been directed towards a community activist. The editorial repeated Mr. Pritchett's allegations as fact in concluding that a terrible wrong had been done while also offering that now was the time for an ordinance regulating junkyards. The Herald, it appears, made no attempt to confirm or corroborate Mr. Pritchett's statements. Did they interview the local business owner who supposedly refused Mr. Pritchett service to see if there was another side to the story? Did they seek comment from Sheriff Cruzan regarding what might be considered rather controversial advice to carry a concealed weapon? Did they contact the phone company to confirm a complaint? Are there message machine tapes which substantiate the allegations (it would be reasonable to assume that one might tape incoming calls after the first one or two threatening calls)? If Mr. Pritchett was threatened that's wrong. Period. The problem here is that The Herald simply printed Mr. Pritchett's allegations as fact and in doing so they intentionally sensationalized the story in an attempt to change the focus on an important public debate. If threats were made, they should be investigated and The Herald should report on that investigation with balance and accuracy. However, the threats and the investigation are separate from the debate on the public policy and community issues at hand. Mr. Pritchett's views about how we should go about regulating junkyards may be valid, but they are made no more valid or just by the existence of these threats. Public discourse and dialogue are not furthered or enhanced by sensationalizing the debate. The story, as printed by The Herald, unfairly demonizes those who may be opposed to Mr. Pritchett by inference and innuendo. We would gain a whole lot if we would start talking with one another rather than yelling at each other. Discussions about public policy should be less about being right and more about solving problems and reaching accommodation. If we define issues simply on the basis of winners and losers, then we degrade the quality of debate to the point where we focus more on tactics than solutions and ultimately everyone loses. Like most issues, the debate on junkyards has at least two sides. The residents near these facilities have legitimate health and aesthetics issues that should be addressed. The businesses also have legitimate concerns with their right and ability to do business. It also should be acknowledged that at least one of these businesses was at its location long before the surrounding residential development. Perhaps the answer is for those on both sides of the issue to sit down as neighbors and discuss both their differences and interests in the hope of finding common ground. Mark Jamison Cullowhee |
|
|
Help us find our dogTo the Editor:Our family was stricken with heartache Feb. 4 when someone took our 17-month-old Jack Russell terrier right off our front porch. He was last seen about 2 p.m. This dog was just like a member of our family. Even though we have only had him for a short time, we were very close to him. We took him on vacation, to the beach, camping and anywhere else we went. He was also a big part of our daughters' lives. He laid right beside my daughter Laci as she recovered from her last surgery, sensing that something was wrong, knowing to be careful around her. This has been an awful ordeal for our family to go through, but it has been especially hard on our three children. Home is a place of safety and security, but now my children question that. They do not understand how one of our family members can be taken right from our home, never to be seen again. If you have seen our dog or have any information about his disappearance, please call us at 293-7021 or 293-9878. Our dog had a white body with a brown head. He also had a perfect brown heart shaped spot on his back. We really miss him and want him back home where he belongs. We have a $500 reward for his safe return. Thank you, Kristie Wike Cullowhee
|