Register To ParticipateBehind the Times
A polarizing media
Posted on April 24, 2007 by kraus2686
Filed Under Clinton, Elections, Newsroom news, Noah's posts |
Responses to a question I asked at Monday’s candidates night about the Clinton rifle range were varied and interesting. Candidate Greg Stahl said he felt the issue had been polarized by the local media. It’s an accusation sometimes lobbed at journalists and one that I think is sometimes warranted. In our attempt to understand and explain issues, there can sometimes be the tendency to stack up one side against another.
I have to disagree with Mr. Stahl on this one, though. Here’s your “Behind the Headlines” nugget for this week: we were actually a little slow to get on board this story when it resurfaced a little less than two years ago. I remember sitting at a story meeting where it came up — a few readers had asked why we weren’t covering more of the rifle range issue. Of course, I knew those directly effected and involved were passionate about the issue, “but is this really something that the public at large is hungry to hear more about?” I asked. Our mission is to inform, but we also try to weigh that coverage toward areas that we know our readers care a lot about.
I have to say I agree with Mr. Stahl that it seems there are more pressing issues in town than a rifle range off South Meadow Pond Road. But for the last two years this issue has earned a reputation in our newsroom as the story that just won’t go away. Believe me, we’d like to move on. As long as this debate continues in our town, however, and as long as the process toward a final resolution continues, I think the local media has a responsibility to continue to cover it.
And as far as polarizing, the candidate’s responses seemed to really run the gamut. One candidate was vehemently against the range, one objected unless more safety measures were ensured and two others said they favored the direction the town was taking to negotiate a lease.
What do you folks say? Is this a non-issue? Are we missing the point on this?
Comments
4 Responses to “A polarizing media”
Leave a Reply
It is an issue that should be important to all Members of our Community. The area surrounding the rifle range has been developed. There are new soccer fields, schools and a cemetary. The use of the range would be disruptive at best, and a serious safety issue at worst. The town voted on this issue and deemed the area to be used as passive recreation. The people spoke, and yet this issue still remains open to debate. Why is it a few in town who wish to exercise their rights to bear amrs, can subjugate the rights of others who wish for a quiet funeral, soccer game, or education, without gunfire echoing in the background?
Though there are some who may feel that the rights of those who want to have a rifle range are being stepped on, please think of every one else. In this day and age in our town. Why does the general public need a rifle range? the only answeer is that we don’t, especially when it is near places where the general public lives, plays and buries their loved ones.
This can be a polarizing issue if it is allowed to be, it should not. The guns need to put away and in the wake of terrible news events that have been in the news we all need to rethink our terrible facination and feel for the need of guns. There are no rights being trampled on here. There are places where guns can be used and for those who desire, then they need to avail themselves of those places but we in this town do not need such a place, especially here.
We do need places where there is room to walk, play and be one with nature. Walking trails and open space is at a premium and there is a need for areas like this but where are the rights of those people, are they being shot down? As a town, we all need to have space to roam and we don’t need to pay $2.5 million for it either as we will be asked to to.
Let’s leave the rifles and guns at home under lock and key and allow the walking trails and general recreatioin be the rule.
I hate to break this down to a simple questions…BUT
But why are we even considering the Rifle range if the residents don’t want it?
I agree with Mariah. Simply, the residents don’t want it, but there are other interested parties in town that do. Can someone please tell me why Bill Connolly, a Member of the fish and gun club, who’s been very vocal on this issue, recently received a low-interest loan from the town in the amount of $70,000. Isn’t Bill’s position on the finance committee, of all things, a conflict of interest? I thought those loans were avialble to small businesses that would add to the employment of Clinton residents. As the Item reported, Bill will be using those funds to improve his rental properties. In what way does that benefit the town?
We need to be sure that we send a loud message at the upcoming election that we’ve had enough of Connolly and his manipulation of the current Board of Selectman.