September 30, 2016 12:32 am ET
Message board censorship will not dampen my voice
Source: Setting the Sun Straight
Call me a creature of habit and routine, folks.
I wake up every morning (hopefully), make a pot of coffee, walk outside, and pick up my copy of the Sun. Even though I know that the information will be skewed, I read over the latest news, or—lately—what passes as news in that liberal paper.
I would say I’m shocked at the lack of solid reporting on some articles, especially in Baltimore County, but I’m numb to it anymore. That is partly because I know better, so it galls me that the county is getting a free pass.
If every reporter at the Sun was on par, or even a few strokes over due to missing a couple of putts, all could be forgiven. However, I’m finding more and more gaffs that puzzle me.
This is one of those gaffs.
At first, I thought of the movie Groundhog Day when I wrote this piece on Councilwoman Cathy Bevins turning her back on her constituents over the outlet mall Paragon. Thinking about that and other slaps in the face of community members, this front page story in the Sun caught my eye.
The council reversed its decision and will allow a certain developer to build homes on the former golf course site.
Did I say the community was upset?
What made me choke on my good to the last gulp of coffee was the content—or the lack thereof—all due to the name of the developer. That is something I also wrote about, as did the Sun, which is why I was wanting more.
Normally, I would voice my concerns on the comment section of the Sun, but—for some reason—I have been banned. No clue why. I always follow the rules when commenting. I guess challenging the reporter’s facts is not the type of feedback that the paper is seeking, so I was banned.
I believe that is called censorship.
With that in mind, I will challenge the Sun’s in-depth reporting, or lack thereof, here in my column/blog, where the Sun’s editors and staff can’t censor me.
With that said, here we go.
The reporter writes about the zoning change in the same manner as the Paragon deal, where the council cast aside the wishes of the voters. However, the reporter failed to follow through on some important dots to connect the important factors that the readers might want to know.
The first is the name of the developer and from where he came.
Actually, I wrote about him in this article, but the Sun chose to leave his name and other issues out of the story on the new zoning change involving the former Chestnut Ridge golf course.
I even took the issue a step further by writing another article on Councilman’s Crandell’s relationship with the developer and the VA at Fort Howard. I even went so far as to file a PIA since the results, as far as I was concerned, were suspicious at best as my column points out.
Why the Sun chose to omit this information is beyond me. The full disclosure of this information paints an entirely different “landscape,” if you will.
I’m not done yet. There are more tidbits of information left out of the story of betrayal by a council hell-bent on developing everything that has green grass underneath.
This quote was from a previous article in the Sun by the same reporter:
Crandell drafted legislation that would have allowed the 400-unit project, but then withdrew it.
It’s not clear if Cignarale is still involved in the project. Neither Munshell nor Cignarale responded to requests for comment Wednesday.
The VA also did not respond to a request for comment.
Regarding that matter, I sent the VA an email asking for information on that subject, but I was told to file a FOIA. What does that tell you?
Some cool heads at the Fort Howard Community Association already did file the FOIA, and the due date for that information is fast approaching.
Seems like a lot a people are going out of their way to protect Baltimore County.
I also found it a bit odd that Mr. Armando Cignarale’s name was not used in the Sun article; rather, a man named C.J. Llardo was quoted, who is listed as a principal with Cignal Corp.
As a reader, I would like to see the various connections between the developers, as well as their associations with the various members of the council.
In my last column/blog, I wrote about the bias in the media on the rape stats in the county and how drastically the city was treated. Low and behold, I found the 9/29 issue of the Sun dealing with, once again, Baltimore City in this article.
That just gives credence to my assessment of the Sun’s biased coverage—one more reason why I think I was banned from commenting on the Sun’s site.
For a paper that claims to reach as many a million people per week, the weekly poll question only draws around on average a 170 votes.
That low number speaks volumes, folks.
With that, I rest my case.