The decline of the fourth estate is evident everywhere. Lack of investigative reporting, tabloid/gossip and other garbage presented as news.
It is a hot and hazy mid-August day in western Massachusetts and the news must be slow. So, the Republican newspaper printed this article which attempts to fan speculation, rumor and undermine the work the western MA casino task force. A rather long article to show that some officials in one town don't like it that some officials in another town donated money to an anti-casino group.
There is a problem with the quality of reporting (by a talented writer, I might add) because it serves to muddle the different layers of committees and individual actions of the people identified in the article (which editor prompted the reporter to pursue this "sensational" angle for an article?). The failure to clarify the roles of different committees and separate professional and personal actions is a disservice to the readers, the participants in the process and the region. In the case of Monson officials, no stipends are received for service.
So, let me clarify what the article failed to accomplish. There is a local casino study committee (LCSC) in the town of Monson established about 1 1/2 years ago, which I chair. This committee has been inactive over the past year following preliminary research and a report to the town of the results of a questionnaire to residents. The LCSC is scheduled to meet again in September for updates on proposed legislation. There has not been a compelling reason to meet following the vote in the House to procedurally defeat slots, which are not legal in the Commonwealth and all the buzz about a mega-casino in an abutting town is speculation at this point. There may be more to discuss as the Legislature takes action in the fall.
There is a Western MA Casino Task Force (WMCAT), comprised of 15 communities that has studied the potential impacts on the region for almost two years. The WMCAT wrote a letter to legislators listing the concerns, dated July 23, 2009 and I have posted it downthread. The task force has received technical assistance from Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and has no position on slots/casinos beyond advocating for the region. The Republican devoted more space reporting the gossip in today's article than the groundbreaking work of the task force.
The Monson Board of Selectmen has stated as a board that they are neutral on the issue.
Some Palmer Town Councilors and the paid liaison for Northeast Realty also an elected official, are pro-casino. That's their personal right, I have no comment on their position. I have no comment on the position of other Town Councilors or Selectboard members in the region who have a personal opinion on the issue either. I certainly hope they have studied the issue thoroughly and have an idea of where they stand as well as a clear understanding of the potential impacts on their community. The Palmer Town Council has not taken a vote to endorse or oppose a casino in their community to the best of my knowledge. OK, so, what? My opinion of the Palmer Town Council's position on casinos is not any more newsworthy than their opinion of the Monson Board of Selectmen's position on casinos. The remarks and in fact, the entire article is a distraction from the real issues, which are the potential impacts and advocating for appropriate mitigation should the Legislature legalize the electronic gambling devices, known as slots.
Personally, after 15 years of research on the issues of gambling, addiction, public health, municipal and environmental impacts, I am opposed to slots/casinos. Philosophically, I concur with Walter Chronkite that funding government from gambling is "cynical". Politically, I agree with the resolution against predatory slot gambling passed at the Democratic State Convention. Economically, I support small businesses and deplore welfare for corporations that take from the working and middle class.
Personally, I plan to exercise my right to free speech on this issue, including funding organizations that oppose expanded gambling and electronic gambling devices, engineered to keep users "playing to extinction" (slots). I plan to exercise my right to free speech to debate the issue, not roll around in the muck of ad hominen distractions with those who would seek to shy from the serious matters at hand.
Gambling promises the poor what property performs for the rich -- something for nothing.
Author: George Bernard Shaw
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Excellent post.
It's a common tactic of pro-casino forces to attack anti-casino people in an attempt to intimidate them into silence. This is something I've seen first hand in Middleboro for over 2 years - and it's still happening.
Double up your asbestos underwear and start growing an extra thick skin.
SOP (Standard Operating Proceedure) from casino proponents?
Those with a "vested interest" who stand to profit from casino development always cry "foul" about the opinions of opponents. The "Cha Ching" you hear is money going into their pockets.
This is Rule #1 in the Casino Operating Book to discredit legitimate conversation.
When you don't want to conduct public forums that allow equal time for opposition to speak, you have something to hide, much like the Middleboro BOS at the time of the Mashpee Wampanoag proposal.
When you support a proposal that effects the long term quality of life within a town and a region, and fail to allow the circulation of ideas, the airing of concerns, as an elected official, you have shirked your obligations.
When you don't allow public discussion, it's called tyranny.
One need only examine the Middleboro BOS conduct for evidence. Pathetic conduct on the part of all, particularly the Chairman at the time who will forever be known as the Gavel Queen for her refusal to allow the democratic process.
It's time to discuss the facts and insist the media do the same.
The decline of newspapers has left them unwilling to create controversy and frequently unwilling to report the truth.
What the folks in Palmer are forgetting is that when a governing body is looking out for the interests of it's citizens, the "official" stance of that body may not coincide with the personal beliefs of it's individual members.
If I were a Palmer representative I would be satisfied with Monson taking a neutral stance rather than having them come out as staunchly anti-casino.
Palmer may be poking a skunk with a fishing pole here. They almost seem to be prodding Monson officials to declare formal opposition to a casino.
Post a Comment