I would've believed David Rutherford posted this video in support of the Superintendent, since he did run as a school board member on Wilma Campbell's slate and he did campaign for Republican candidate John Campbell Jr., who ran on the Independent line.
However, David "assassinated her character", which is what the Superintendent says the Mayor did to her. The Superintendent, with her notes in her hand, stated she wanted to move the date to November 13. Huh?
The writer assumes support for the superintendent because David ran for a school board seat with backing from Board President Wilma Campbell. I hope this is not a suggestion that David would be just a rubber-stamp for the Campbell faction, which now includes Mrs Campbell's husband, John Campbell, on the board.
The video also captures the superintendent making a blunder by citing the wrong date for the Youth Summit. So should David have not posted the video on that account?
Some might ask why does an anonymous comment deserve consideration in the first place. I think this one points to issues of free speech and censorship for political reasons. David has added a valuable voice to discourse on Plainfield, and also brings technical abilities that other bloggers don't have. The superintendent's remarks and responses from others will be broadcast on the local cable channels at some point anyway. Posting this segment of the meeting brings immediacy in the same way that a news story would, with the added value of seeing and hearing the speakers. Viewers can draw their own conclusions.
The comment reminded me of an incident when I was still a reporter. The wife of a prominent political figure called me at home on a Saturday to harangue me about a news story involving her son, who got in trouble by cutting off a security guard while entering his college campus.
"We thought you were our friend!" she huffed.
Her expectation that I would cover it up surprised me. Reporters don't play that. The attempt at brow-beating went on for some time, and now that she herself is a public figure, I see her pulling the same tactic on others.
Political solidarity in lieu of the facts is a losing proposition. Politicians may try to cover for each other, but journalists and activists operate by a different code.
To borrow a phrase from that great sage Stan Laurel, "Honesty is the best politics!"
--Bernice
To Anonymous who submitted a lot of questions regarding David Rutherford, either sign your name or ask him directly.
The video also captures the superintendent making a blunder by citing the wrong date for the Youth Summit. So should David have not posted the video on that account?
Some might ask why does an anonymous comment deserve consideration in the first place. I think this one points to issues of free speech and censorship for political reasons. David has added a valuable voice to discourse on Plainfield, and also brings technical abilities that other bloggers don't have. The superintendent's remarks and responses from others will be broadcast on the local cable channels at some point anyway. Posting this segment of the meeting brings immediacy in the same way that a news story would, with the added value of seeing and hearing the speakers. Viewers can draw their own conclusions.
The comment reminded me of an incident when I was still a reporter. The wife of a prominent political figure called me at home on a Saturday to harangue me about a news story involving her son, who got in trouble by cutting off a security guard while entering his college campus.
"We thought you were our friend!" she huffed.
Her expectation that I would cover it up surprised me. Reporters don't play that. The attempt at brow-beating went on for some time, and now that she herself is a public figure, I see her pulling the same tactic on others.
Political solidarity in lieu of the facts is a losing proposition. Politicians may try to cover for each other, but journalists and activists operate by a different code.
To borrow a phrase from that great sage Stan Laurel, "Honesty is the best politics!"
--Bernice
To Anonymous who submitted a lot of questions regarding David Rutherford, either sign your name or ask him directly.
David didn't assinate anyone's character. They did that to themselves. David's video speaks for itself.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Bernice and David. It is what it is and that is the fault of the speaker not the recorder. Our superintendent sounds more like a politician blaming the "media" for being against them when all they did was report or record what the person said. There is no interpreation in this, just the glaring honest truth of the what the person said or did. Our super acts more like a politician than someone we pay to run our schools efficiently and with our children's needs at the fore and not those of the power seeking Campbells.
ReplyDeleteDavid spoke the truth as he saw it. Is that a crime? I think not. At least he signed his name to it unlike the anonymous PTO members who made comments. They should get a "backbone" and reveal themselves instead of hiding behind anonymous.
ReplyDeleteDee Dameron
Dee, don't get me wrong. I think David performs a valuable public service. It's a promising sign for his tenure on the board.
ReplyDeleteSometimes you have to speak the truth that you know anonymously or face childish retaliation. The truth is the truth regardless.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous!
Randy, I wasn't referring to you in my comment. It was the anonymous ones that posted their comments on the original "He Said, She Said." They're hiding behind anonymity.
ReplyDeleteDee Dameron
This isn't "hiding"--it results from a reasonable fear of retaliation, e.g. bad evaluations, job loss, etc.--it's good self-protection. As a former American Federation of Teachers staffer, I have had to deal with this kind of issue many times--but this was before blogs where one couldn't comment anonymously (word gets around, and statements often gain rather than lose in translation). Anybody ever play the "whispering game" with a classroom full of teenagers?
ReplyDelete