| Press Responsibility
| [Home
Page] [Alternate Navigation] |
|
|
PRESS RESPONSIBILITY CONTENTS: Overview Vol. I - Ethics Vol. II - Plagiarism Vol. III - D. Motko Omissions/Deletions More Analysis Closing Post Script Vol. III - EVALUATION OF DAVID MOTKO'S WRITINGS: A Reflection of The Daily Review's Ethical Standards Published by Bradford County Alliance for Democracy (BCAD), October 2001 Excerpt from Volume III:
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Letter to the owners of The Daily Review
I. INTRODUCTION
A. About this Report
1. Purpose
2. Organizations and Format
3. Quality Control
B. Criteria of Evaluation
1. Misrepresentation
2. Personal attacks
II. DOCUMENTATION
A. Misrepresentations
1. Motko on Motko
2. Abuse and Rape Crisis Center (ARCC)
3. Federal and State Monies and Grants
4. Miscellaneous - Local
5. Public Education
6. Liberals
7. Miscellaneous - State and National
8. Bogus, inadequate, missing citations
B. Personal Attacks and Attacks on Organizations
1. Local Individuals and Organizations
2. State or National Figures, Groups, and Organizations
III. CONCLUSIONS
A. Draw Your Own Conclusions
B. BCAD's Conclusions
IV. APPENDIX
A. Continuation of Section II. A. 5., Public Education
B. Summary of the argument for protecting church-state separation
|
| Letter to the owners of The
Daily Review
October 22, 2001 Mr. George Lynett, President Dear Mr. Lynett, Respectfully yours, * This series can be found at www.bc-alliance.org and in the Bradford County Library. Back to the top I. Introduction: A. About this Report 1. Purpose Ian Fennell, Editor of The Daily Review wrote, “[Daily Review Columnist David] Motko writes about issues that I believe need to be addressed, such as our nation’s education establishment, the local justice system and political news from Towanda to Harrisburg to Washington.... it’s my opinion that his columns provide an important community service.” (TDR 7/1/01) It is the nature of this “important community service” that Motko offers to the citizens of our area that is analyzed in Volume III, Evaluation of David Motko’s Writings. This report documents the findings of the Bradford County Alliance for Democracy’s (BCAD) evaluation of 107 published writings of David Motko. This is a sufficient representation of David Motko’s published work from which to draw reasonable conclusions about his “important community service.” These letters to the editor and opinion columns appeared between April 15, 1993 and May 1999, and between November 2000 and September 2001. Most of the letters appeared in the Sullivan Review, Dushore, PA and all the columns appeared in The Daily Review, Towanda, PA. His opinion columns between May 1999 and November 2000 have not been reviewed yet by BCAD. As these get evaluated, our findings will be added to the web version of this report located at www.bc-alliance.org. Volume III was undertaken as a public service to the citizens of Bradford and Sullivan Counties by the BCAD in order to help restore The Daily Review to an ethical and responsible local newspaper serving our counties. Volume III is the third report in the series of reports that include The Ethics of The Daily Review: An Evaluation of its Editorial Practices, June 2000, and Volume II, August 2000. The first two were published by Citizens for Press Responsibility @ The Daily Review. This report is published by BCAD. All three reports are available on BCAD’s website, www.bc-alliance.org and are on file in hard copy at the Bradford County Library. Back to the top I. Introduction: A. About this Report 2. Organizations and Format The documentation of Volume III is divided into the following sections - the Introduction (including Criteria of Evaluation), Documentation, Conclusions, and Appendix. The Documentation section is organized in two sections - Misrepresentations and Personal Attacks. Each of these sections is organized by subjects or issues that are commonly found in Motko’s writings. Each evaluation starts by quoting from a Motko letter-to-the- editor or opinion column. Within that quote a phrase or two is bolded to focus the readers’ attention on the point being evaluated by BCAD. The quoted language is followed by a “BCAD comment” which identifies the criteria being used to evaluate the quote, and this is often followed by additional BCAD commentary as appropriate. Where definitions are helpful, we have used Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, New York: The World Publishing Company, 1972, as our resource. These references appear as, “Webster’s p.1602,” for example. Unless otherwise identified, the full text of Motko’s Letters-to- the-Editor between 1993 and 1998 can be found in the bound books of the Sullivan Review (SR)weekly newspaper in the office of the Sullivan Review in Dushore, PA. The full text of opinion columns by David Motko after 1999 can be obtained from The Daily Review (DR), the Bradford County Library, or the Bradford County Historical Society. Back to the top I. Introduction: A. About this Report 3. Quality Control Any time a person quotes sections of an author’s material, there are three quality control concerns: accuracy in copying the quote, retaining the meaning of the quote as it appeared in its original context, and appropriate source citations. In order to avoid mistakes in these areas, all of Motko’s written material that has been quoted in this document has been compared by independent reviewers to the original text. We believe we have met those quality control standards. Back to the top I. Introduction: B. Criteria of Evaluation 1. Misrepresentation a. Falsehood: Knowingly to state falsely is to lie. To leave out key information needed to give an adequate picture is a distortion or a misrepresentation. b. Bogus literary citation: Quoting literary sources that do not exist is a falsehood; representing quoted authors as experts who are not authorities in the field is a sham; quoting authors out of context in such a way as to change the author’s intended meaning is a distortion; reporting information but leaving out essential facts which provide the essential context for intelligently interpreting the information is a deception; and quoting a literary source without providing an adequate citation so the quotation can be independently verified is not acceptable by any standard. c. Unsubstantiated allegation: An "allegation" is "an assertion made without proof." Webster’s, p. 36. A legitimate use of an allegation is to say that, "Jane Doe is alleged to have done X." This reports that Jane Doe is accused of doing something, but so far there is no information available to confirm the claim about Jane Doe. An unethical use of allegation is to say, "Jane Doe has done X." This implies that the speaker has the proof. d. Strawman argument: To use a "straw man" argument is to represent the opponent’s argument in a weak or incorrect form and then to criticize this phoney or misrepresented argument, rather than addressing the real issues of the opponent’s position. Webster’s Dictionary defines it as follows, "A weak argument or opposing view set up by a politician, debater, etc., so that he may attack it and gain an easy, showy victory." Webster’s, p. 1408. e. Non sequitur: A person has used a "non sequitur" when his or her argument doesn’t make sense because what he or she claims does not follow from what they have said before or the data they have presented doesn’t support their claim. Webster’s defines a "non sequitur" as, "a conclusion or inference which does not follow from the premises;... a remark having no bearing on what has been said." Webster’s, p. 969. f. Comparing apples to oranges: To compare apples to oranges means to draw a conclusion from a comparison of two or more things that cannot be compared logically. Comparing apples to oranges is one of the most common ways to arrive at a false conclusion. This is how the aphorism "statistics don’t lie but liars use statistics" got started. g. Negligent ignorance: Negligent ignorance is ignorance that results from not doing the homework, fact finding, and analysis that is normally expected of a responsible person in that situation. Those who offer themselves to the public as an expert in a field of study have a special responsibility to at least familiarize themselves, if not master all aspects of the concepts and facts that define the field as an area of study and the related standards of professional practice. The term “quack,” for example, is used for a medical doctor, or someone who misrepresents him or her self as a doctor, who doesn’t exhibit the skills, knowledge, or capability that reflects solid training and the education needed to be a competent doctor. Similarly, the term “hack” is used for a journalist or political pundit who does not demonstrate the skills and integrity we associate with respected journalists or columnists whom we learn to rely on because of their unbiased presentation of factual information or presentation of opinions that are based on careful research information and presented in a coherent and logical way. Both the quack and hack are recognized by their slip-shod work. h. Hypocrisy: A hypocrite is, “a person who pretends to be what he is not; one who pretends to be better than what he is; or to be pious, virtuous, etc., without really being so.” Webster’s, p. 690. For example, Representative Henry Hyde, (R) Ill. and Representative Robert Barr, (R), GA, were hypocrites in the impeachment proceedings of President Clinton because both had had adulterous affairs but had not revealed these facts while criticizing President Clinton’s affair. Back to the top I. Introduction: B. Criteria of Evaluation 2. Personal attacks a. Name calling: At the minimum, name calling is bad manners. Name calling is used to ridicule, demean, and otherwise show disrespect for people. b. Ad hominem attack: To use an “ad hominem” attack means to appeal to the readers’ or audience’s “prejudices rather than to reason, as by attacking one’s opponents personally rather than debating the issue.”Webster’s page 17. c. Insinuation: To insinuate means to hint, as in a “sly hint,” or “suggest indirectly: imply.” Webster’s p. 729. In common usage, to insinuate has a pejorative connotation; the person who insinuates is suggesting something negative about another person’s character, honesty, intelligence, or social standing without actually saying it in a straightforward manner. What makes insinuations so insidiously toxic is that the meaning of the writer or speaker is usually masked in a metaphor or an incompletely expressed thought. This requires the reader or listener to make assumptions about the writer’s intended meaning. Thus, the writer attempts to avoid responsibility for the effects of his words. Insinuation is a trademark of the coward. Back to the top II. Documentation: A. Misrepresentations Back to the top II. Documentation: A. Misrepresentations 2. Abuse and Rape Crisis Center (ARCC) a. “If you’ve ever attended an ARCC training – and I have - the central theme [of the ARCC training] is always that men are by nature abusive, evil and maybe a bit maniacal, while women are virtuous and because of men, perpetual victims.” David Motko, TDR, 2/16/01. BCAD Comment - falsehood: For the record, David Motko has never attended one of the hundreds of the training programs conducted by ARCC staff over the last 20 years. What Motko attended were a couple of training programs which ARCC sponsored but which were conducted by outside trainers, not ARCC staff. The following response was printed as a letter in The Daily Reviewby retired Police Chief Cole: “[Dave,] I feel you were out of line in your statement [above]. If you attended any of their training, then you were not listening or went to the training with preconceived notions. I happen to attend almost all of the locally available training sessions and numerous state wide training on domestic violence and for a few years was on the panels for ARCC volunteer training. Therefore, know the statements you are making are not true. I don’t recall any time that you spent as a member of the training panel but, yet you speak as though you’re an expert. For nine years I never observed you at any of the mock rape trials, even as an observer, but I was privileged to assist with all of them, as the prosecuting officer...” Dale W. Cole, retired Police Chief, Towanda, TDR, 3/5/01 b. “ ... ARCC, also known to some as the “men haters”...” David Motko, TDR, 2/16/01 BCAD Comment - unsubstantiated allegation: The following response was printed as a letter in The Daily Reviewby Duane Campbell: “The Executive Director of this group [ARCC] of dedicated and underpaid people, who Motko alludes to as “men haters,” has been my wife for 37 years. I can say with considerable authority....she does not hate men in general and that she is not even close to being a feminist.” Duane Campbell, TDR, 2/25/01; Many members of the BCAD know the ARCC staff, and we can attest to the fact that none of the staff in this fine organization are “men haters.” c. “The Rape and Abuse Crisis Center [ARCC] does not so much educate, as it does indoctrinate.” David Motko, TDR, 2/16/01 BCAD Comment - falsehood: During the two years, 1998 and 1999, that David Motko worked as a Special County Detective under DA Bob McGuinness, Motko did not attend any of the training given by ARCC personnel, even though he was repeatedly invited to attend these training programs. His assignment as a Detective was to solve domestic violence and sexual assault cases, and a condition of his employment was that he attend training in these areas because his salary was paid by a federal grant that required this training. The grant was a Federal Stop Violence Against Women Act grant. d. "ARCC had brainwashed the kids into believing men were drunkards, abusers and, at the very least, potential abusers. In general, ne-er-do-wells." David Motko, TDR, 3/4/01 BCAD Comment - unsubstantiated allegation: For the record, David Motko has never attended an ARCC training program conducted by ARCC staff in any public school. In the fiscal year 1999-2000, ARCC conducted 184 in-school programs in Bradford County which taught 3,851 children and were attended by scores of teachers.* ARCC has been conducting these programs for many years. If ARCC’s programs were as Motko asserts, one would think that many teachers would be quick to object. (*Source: ARCC statistical report) BCAD Comment - hypocrisy: In 1993, Motko bitterly complained about the Sullivan Review, “How your paper could publish an editorial without conducting some sort of a legitimate investigation demonstrates a lack of literary integrity and is a repugnant form of YELLOW JOURNALISM!” David Motko, SR, 5/20/93 (“Yellow Journalism”as defined by Webster’s means, “the use of cheaply sensational or unscrupulous methods in newspapers, etc. to attract or influence the reader.”( Websters, p.1647) e. "So how is it that the feminists from ARCC can go into our public schools and belittle the male members of the class, then induce them to speak out publicly about their “alleged inherent inferiority, as was the case in the subject article [David Motko, TDR, 2/4/01]" David Motko, TDR, 3/4/01 BCAD Comment: - unsubstantiated allegation: same as ‘d’ above. f. "What’s being taught in our public schools by ARCC may be "politically correct" but it’s based on a fallacious premise, demonizes males and is counter-productive." David Motko, TDR, 3/4/01 BCAD Comment: - unsubstantiated allegation: same as ‘d’ above. Back to the top II. Documentation: A. Misrepresentations 3. Federal and State Monies and Grants a. "The subsidies received by Sullivan County from the state level are generated by taxes. The money to pay them still comes from your wallet and mine, its just that simple. There’s no such thing as a free ride, no matter how the money is routed or who signed the check.” David Motko, SR, 4/15/93. · "If you’re interested in seeing how and where your tax dollars are squandered, get a copy the Government Assistance Almanac. ... In it you’ll find 1,454 federal domestic-assistance programs. It could aptly be titled ‘The Socialists Guide to Subsidized Living: How to Live at Someone Else’s Expense.’ Now add to this all the programs offered by your state government and the horde of bureaucrats ... and anyone with the sense that God gave geese can see it’s a taxpayer’s nightmare." David Motko, TDR, 9/9/01. BCAD Comment - hypocrisy: When it comes to himself, apparently David Motko sees no problem in getting paid by the taxpayers. He was paid by the federal Stop Violence Against Women Act grant when he worked for the District Attorney’s office under Bob McGuinness. Now, David Motko is getting paid by The Daily Review, a private for-profit firm, which recently has had a new production plant built in Towanda Township using a low interest loan underwritten in part by local and state taxpayers of Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, there were commercial banks on Main Street, Towanda, which probably would have been happy to loan the money to the Towanda Printing Co. Before that, Motko worked for 25 years on the public tab as a State Trooper. It would appear he has become fond of jobs that are subsidized, in whole or in part, by the taxpayers. Motko is a case study of the“Grizzly Bear Syndrome,” grizzly bears who have become dependent on the food handouts at national parks. (his 5/27/01 column). b. "Take the Bradford County Regional Arts Council, proprietor of the Keystone theater.... This outfit has received about $1 million from taxpayers in the way of grants in recent years and now state Rep. Tina Pickett wants to give it another $100,000. The Keystone Theater, supported by taxpayer’s dollars, is in direct competition with the private sector."... "It ‘s nitwittery of the sort that only a socialist or a fool would endorse." David Motko, TDR, 5/27/01 BCAD Comment - falsehood, name calling, and hypocrisy: It is not reasonable to argue that the Keystone theatre is "in direct competition with the private sector" when all the private theaters in our area had closed their doors or were looking to sell or shutting down prior to BCRAC starting theaters. As to the hypocrisy, see II. 3. a. above. c. "That drab-looking building [Central Bradford Progress Authority (CBPA) building] down by the bridge has for some time now been emitting a sort of sucking sound as it draws in renters. The Social Security office, military recruiters, Public Assistance office, even Sen. Roger Madigan now reside there.”..... Motko reports he asked, “How much is state Sen. Roger Madigan paying for the rental of his office?”....The answer was, $1,100 per month. “There is a secretary assigned to the office but its basically the same operation that worked out of the privately owned McCloskey building located on the other side of town, where the rent was about $450 per month. .... The government mugged the taxpayers in order to get money to build the CBPA building... rolled [them] a second time when he’s forced to pay high rental fees.” David Motko, TDR, 2/18/01 BCAD Comment - Misrepresentation and Comparing apples to oranges: During the interview Motko had with Tony Ventello, Executive Director of the Central Bradford Progress Authority, Tony explained to David Motko that the "Office Lease Agreement" signed for Senator Madigan on November 16, 2000, included the following services that were not provided or available in the office space Senator Madigan had been using in the McCloskey building: a secretary as part of the rental cost, high speed internet access, air conditioning, cleaning services, water and sewer, electric and gas, cleaning, garbage collection, repairs, fire protection system, accessible for people with disabilities, and liability insurance. In summary, Senator Madigan’s increased rent cost covered some services he paid for separately that were not part of his rent at the previous location. In addition, he receives services not available at the other location. David Motko knowingly misrepresented these facts in his 2/18/01 column. Back to the top II. Documentation: A. Misrepresentations 4. Miscellaneous - Local a. "District Attorney Stephen Downs, now in his second year of a four-year term, seems to be awash in questionable plea bargains. To make matters worse, the office by all appearances lacks an aggressive prosecutorial posture even at the district justice level." David Motko, TDR, 3/11/01 · “[Steven] Downs, who took office [as DA] in January 2000, wasted no time establishing his easy come, easy go, prosecutorial style. ... His rather free-spirited and reckless use of plea bargains falsifies defendants’ true criminal records, making them look less menacing than they really are and more worthy of further “breaks” from the next judge they’re brought before.” David Motko, TDR, 5/28/01 BCAD Comment - distortion:According to the research by Wes Skillings, “The statistics don't show Downs making more deals than his predecessors [DA Bob McGuinness, who first hired David Motko]. In fact, he [Downs] seems to be taking as many or more cases to court. Downs points out that during his first year in office (2000) he took twice as many cases to trial than did his predecessor in each of the two preceding years." Skillings continues, "Statistics from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing in its 1998-99 annual report show that in 1998 [when McGuinness was DA] only one percent of the sentences in Bradford County resulted from jury trials.” (Source: Wes Skillings, "Bargaining for Justice," Rocket Courier, Wyalusing, PA, articles appearing 10, 17, and 24 June 2001) b. Concerning the proposal by Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association to make the DA’s positions full time in 8th Class Counties, such as Bradford, and to increase the salaries of DA’s statewide: "... as we have come to find, it’s not how many hours one puts in, but more importantly, what one gets accomplished. .... Now ask yourself: if we increased Down’s salary from $56,000 to $114,000 [if the position is from part time to full-time], would he perform any better than he currently is? You can safely answer no because he has already told us he can’t do any more, .... Downs says he has never personally lobbied for the full-time DA bill. Well Mr. Downs, just where do you stand on the matter? Are you for it or against it?" David Motko, TDR, 6/25/01 BCAD Comment - Insinuation, non sequitur, and strawman argument: This is a typical, below-the-belt Motko attack. First, Motko attacks Downs because he had taken too few cases to court and misrepresents the facts in the process(see II. A. 4. a. above) and then, 27 days later, illogically argues (TDR, 6/25/01) against a full time DA position and increasing Downs’s salary accordingly. Second, Motko dismisses the issue of a part-time verus full-time DA by suggesting the measure for the office should be “what one gets accomplished,” not the time put in. Motko can thank his lucky stars that this was not the measure used for calculating his pay when he was a State Trooper (see II .A. 1.). Finally, Motko insinuates that Downs is probably for the bill with no evidence to support that suggestion. There is another perspective on this attack on DA Downs. Let’s look at Motko’s pattern of behavior. He sued his employer of 21 years, the State Police, in Federal Court (see II. A.1. a. above). Next he attacked the Abuse and Rape Crisis Center which had administered the Federal grant used by DA Guinness to pay Motko (see II. A. 2. above). Now he has attacked DA Downs, Motko’s most recent past employer. There is a pattern here. c. “Those who worked to ban the [Power] Team waived the banner of “separation of church and state” but no one offered evidence, at least none that I heard or read about, to support this legal contention.” David Motko, TDR, 3/3/01 BCAD Comment - negligent ignorance: If Motko was not “aware” of the evidence, it is because he apparently did not read The Daily Reviewor look for evidence in all the obvious places. The evidence was readily available in letters-to- the-editor printed in The Daily Review(2/27/01, 2/11/01); the offices of the school superintendents in ten school districts in our area, including Troy and Towanda (letters from the BCAD of 2/20/01, 3/19/01 and a letter from the ACLU PA of 2/22/01); at the office of Rev. David Morris in Canton who orchestrated the Power Team’s visit to our area (BCAD letter dated 3/15/01); the office of Mr. Richard Wilber, President, First Citizens National Bank, who helped fund the Power Team visit (BCAD letter of 2/20/01); and at the home office of the Power Team in Texas (BCAD fax dated about 2/20/01 ). In fact, the legal evidence was presented in many of these letters. This documentation is summarized in Appendix B. d. “Your editorial [SR] insinuated that I am a liar and that my purpose for exposing this alleged corruption is politically motivated.” David Motko, SR, 5/20/93 · “When concerned citizens [i.e., Motko] challenge the establishment’s remedies it becomes a testy situation. Those in power then resort to ad hominem remarks and indignities.” David Motko, SR, 11/3/94 · "But Gore and the gang won’t just settle for lawsuits, ballot manipulation, false claims of voter disenfranchisement and the sort; no, they could never pass up the opportunity to engage in the politics of personal destruction,.. David Motko, TDR, 11/18/00 BCAD Comment - hypocrisy: As the documentation in this report shows, Motko is guilty of every one of the criticisms he lodges against others. Back to the top II. Documentation: A. Misrepresentations 5. Public Education "Note": Because David Motko has attacked public education in his letters and columns so often, we have moved about half of this long section, II. A.5., to Appendix A.a. "Even a modicum of research on public schools reveals they’ve become havens for social engineering and other assorted nitwittery and, in their zeal to advance socialist egalitarian objectives, have dumbed-down the process resulting in academic mediocrity." David Motko, TDR, 1/13/01 BCAD Comment - Negligent ignorance: What does he mean "they’ve become?" At the very start, when public education was just emerging in the 1800s, public schools were conceived as social experiments - "social engineering" if you will, just as the democracy of this new nation was seen as an experiment. Educators have continued to experiment in an effort to improve public education. The results have not been a "dumbed-down" education, but dramatically improved education. For example, in 1917, only 15% of students graduated from high school. Today, over 82% graduate. Test scores have continued to improve. (Source: Jeffrey Gonzalez, Celebration of Public Education, Pennsylvania Alliance for Democracy, 2001) b. "The standardized test debate is marked by a clear division. Those on the conservative side want tests with high standards; tests which truly reflect a students’s academic accomplishment. Liberals on the other hand want no tests at all but if tests become mandatory demand they be so watered down that those students who studied dumbed-down curriculum could still do well." David Motko, TDR, 1/20/01 BCAD Comment - Negligent ignorance: David Motko is ignorant about the history of education in the United States. It has been the liberal educators who invented testing. "Before WWI, Edward L. Thorndike, of Columbia’s Teachers College [ground zero of liberal education], along with other educational psychologists, had devised standard tests to measure students’ performance."” p.130 "“Up till his death in 1997, Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers,".... "tirelessly advocated the need for higher academic standards." p430. "At the 1989 education summit, the nation’s governors agreed to adopt six national goals for the year 2000. Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas took the lead among the governors in drafting the goals.".... As a result, "voluntary national standards were supposed to describe what children should be expected to learn in different grades in every major subject." p.432 ... Goals 2000 program "provided funds for states to develop standards and assessment." p 433 (Source: Diane Ravitich, Left Back, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000, pages 130, 430, 432, and 433 respectively.) c. "Today our public schools have become entities of the "state;" to believe otherwise requires full-fledged delusion.” David Motko, TDR, 3/3/01 BCAD Comment - Negligent ignorance: “Today?” What does Motko mean by suggesting that just recently public schools have become entities of the state? The first public schools on this continent were established by government mandate in Mass. about 1643. Furthermore, “public schools” in the United States are by definition entities of the state. d. “The more I studied public education and the more school board meetings I attended, the more obvious it became just how out of wack the arrangement is.” David Motko, TDR, 4/30/01 BCAD Comment- unsubstantiated allegation: In this column David Motko makes unsubstantiated allegations about the Towanda school system, but according to our investigation, he has never attended a Towanda School Board meeting. However, a reader would not know that given his attack on the Towanda Schools as shown in the next quote below. e. "What’s the “bloat” doing in the Towanda School District? The district for the past two decades has been on a downward academic slide. How did the administrators attack this crisis? Well, the leaders resorted to “Trickonology. Since the legitimate raising of grades would require hard work on the part of students and teachers – apparently an unappealing option – it was decided to utilize “grade inflation” as an easy way out. B’s now became A’s, C’s became B’s and so on. While the academic proficiency declined, according to standardized test results, most students saw an improvement in their letter grade. ” David Motko, TDR, 4/30/01 BCAD Comment - unsubstantiated allegation: What "bloat" is he talking about? What "downward slide?" These unsubstantiated allegations are used as strawmen to promote another unsubstantiated allegation about grade inflation. f. “To one who has never studied the issue [public education]it would appear logical that the fewer students in a class the better. But exhaustive research on the subject reveals that going below 22 or 25 students brings little gain, but carries a prohibitive cost.” David Motko, SR, 6/25/98 BCAD Comment - Negligent ignorance: In fact, the research on the effect of class size shows that below 15 students per class for elementary students, there are significant academic benefits. (Source: Gerald W. Bracey, “Research: Reducing Class Size – The Findings, The Controversy,” Phi Delta Kappan 81, No. 3, (November 1999:246-247); Helen Pate- Bain et al, “Class Size Does Make a Difference,” Phi Delta Kappan 74, No. 3, (November 1992:253-256)) Furthermore, small elementary schools positively affect student performance. Now, after more than 40 years of experience with consolidation, we have research comparing the academic performance of children in big versus small schools. In brief, what has been found is that most of the benefits of consolidated schools, such as the modern gyms, chemistry labs, and better libraries, have benefitted junior and senior high school students. But, in a study of 7,575 student records “when other factors are controlled statistically, academic performance in small elementary schools is higher than in large elementary schools. In fact, the smallest elementary schools have the highest achievement scores.” (Source: C. L. Welsh, PhD, “The Relationship of School Size To Student Achievement, Big Schools, Small Schools: What’s Best for Students?,” Center for Evaluation Development Research, Phi Delta Kappa, 1996.) As to "prohibitive cost", the United States ranks a low 22 out of 26 industrialized countries in teacher pay. An average teacher in the United States makes $34 per hour of actual teaching time compared to the international average among industrialized countries of $41. “Denmark, Spain, and Germany pay more than $50, South Korea $77.”* If these countries can spend this kind of money on education, we can afford smaller classes for elementary children in the United States.” (*Source: Wilgoren, Jodi, "Education Study Finds U.S. Falling Short," The New York Times, 6/13/01, page A26.) (Section II. A. 5. continues in Appendix A) Back to the top II. Documentation: A. Misrepresentations 6. Liberals a. "Until the liberals infested our educational system in the sixties and seventies, we had a model for the world." ... "The same liberal intellectuals [unnamed] who ran the educational bus into the ditch and wrecked it, now want to exercise TOTAL control of the public schools." David Motko, SR, 10/6/94 BCAD Comment - Negligent ignorance. He suggests that before the "sixties and seventies" the liberals did not dominate education. According to Diane Ravitich, a leading historian of education,“The progressive movement in education emerged in 1890s, at the same time as the larger Progressive movement in politics espoused a broad-based array of reforms.”* Public education exists because “liberals” and progressives provided the philosophies, organization formats, and implementation of public education since the 1800's. The history of public education in the United States reflects the ideas, debates, and efforts of the liberal and progressive educators such as John Dewey to improve public education for well over 100 years. The Committee of Ten was the first national commission on public education. The Committee made its report in 1893, which represented, “a melding of objectives of liberal education.” This Committee was headed by two liberal and foresighted educators: Harvard President Charles E. Eliot and William Torrey Harris, Commissioner of Education. “By the end of World War II [1946], progressivism was the reigning ideology of American Education.” (* Source: Diane Ravitich, Left Back, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000, pages 52, 42, and 322.) Second, Motko asserts “intellectuals” are infesting the education system. Imagine that, intellectuals in our education system. b. “...the same liberal dogooders and union activists who took control at the state level, finally got Congress to pass legislation which in essence, turns control of the public schools over to the federal government, via Goals 2000.” David Motko, SR, 2/23/95 BCAD Comment - Distortion, name calling: These Goals were merely recommendations and only 5 cents of every dollar spent on education is spent by the Federal Government. c. “Apparently, operating under the liberal socialist doctrine “the ends justify the means,” Al and Joe have pulled out all the stops and now resemble a couple of world-class election snatchers.” David Motko, TDR, 12/8/00 BCAD Comment - Strawman argument, falsehood: We suggest the Constitution of the United States, with a special focus on the Bill of Rights, as good examples of liberal doctrine. Due process is a key component of our Constitution and is the antithesis of "the ends justify the means." Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were radically liberal doctrines when these were written originally. For some people, these remain uncomfortably radical documents. Second, to call Al and Joe "a couple of world-class election snatchers," flies so completely in the face of the facts of what happened in Florida and at the U.S. Supreme Court, which disenfranchised the Florida electorate. This is a flat falsehood and is inexcusable even in a column of opinion. d. “Those who worked to ban the [Power] Team waived the banner of “separation of church and state” but no one offered evidence, at least none that I heard or read about, to support this legal contention.” ... “If we look deeper, this controversy has little to do with the constitutional issue of the separation of church and state but a whole lot to do with political ideology and frictions between religious factions, both Christian and non-Christian. The agitation between Catholics and Protestants is well-established and has gone on for hundreds of years. The Christian Right, where the Power Team has its roots, will most always draw a small measure of hostility from Catholics, as well as Jews.”... “While religious rivalry is a factor to be considered in the Power Team case, it pales compared with the liberal/socialist influence. The German socialist Karl Marx wrote in 1844: “the first requisite for the people’s happiness is the abolishment of religion.”... “Over the years, we’ve witnessed the “Marxketeers” ceaseless effort to drive God and morality out of every facet of our community, and they’ve done quite a job of it. These counterculture revolutionaries worship the “State” and to them the “State” is God and we are paying the price.” David Motko, TDR, 3/3/01 BCAD Comment - Negligent ignorance: The above quote reflects his incomplete understanding of the history, facts, and concepts that underpin our democratic form of government. These shortcomings result in some of the more peculiar Motko non sequiturs. Let’s examine the above quote from a 3/3/01 column in more detail. “If we look deeper, this controversy [church-state separation] has little to do with the constitutional issue of the separation of church and state but a whole lot to do with political ideology and frictions between religious factions, both Christian and non-Christian.” David Motko, TDR, 3/3/01 BCAD Comment- Negligent ignorance: In fact, church-state separation, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, was created just because of the "frictions between religious factions" and the resulting struggles among these religion groups to gain control of state power. In short, the history of those struggles was why the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment. Motko continues, “while religious rivalry is a factor to be considered in the Power Team case, it pales compared with the liberal/socialist influence. The German socialist Karl Marx wrote in 1844: “the first requisite for the people’s happiness is the abolishment of religion.” David Motko, TDR, 3/3/01 BCAD Comment - Insinuation: Motko appears to be saying that the Power Team controversy in Bradford County in February and March 2001, was orchestrated by Marxist. “Over the years, we’ve witnessed the “Marxketeers” ceaseless effort to drive God and morality out of every facet of our community, and they’ve done quite a job of it.” David Motko, TDR, 3/3/01 BCAD Comment - Negligent ignorance : This is an incredible claim because Americans participate in religion in one form or another more than the citizens of any other industrialized country. In 1776, 17% of the US population attended churches or synagogues of 17 denominations; by 1980, 62% attended. Today, we have more than 2,000 different religious denominations in America. We have more religious freedom in this country than anywhere else on earth. This freedom exists because the Founding Fathers of the United States drafted a Constitution with no reference to God in it. They added the First Amendment so one religious sect would not be able to force their religion on everyone else. However, despite this overwhelming evidence of a vital religious life in the United States, somehow Motko sees the ghostly, long hand of Karl Marx strangling religious life here in the 21st Century.” (Source: Robyn Finke and Rodney Stark, The Churching of America 1776-1990, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick NJ 1992, p.16) Back to the top II. Documentation: A. Misrepresentations 7. Miscellaneous - State and National a. “The ultra-left-wing American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been at the forefront of action to secure special “rights” for gays and lesbians...” David Motko, TDR, 7/22/01 BCAD Comment - Misrepresentation:The ACLU has been working to secure the same rights for gays and lesbians that everyone else enjoys in this country. For example, the civil rights laws that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission is mandated to enforce do not include the protection of people who are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. In Pennsylvania, a person can be dismissed from his or her job if the employer perceives the person to be gay or lesbian and there is no unfair- dismissal law to protect the person. A person can be denied rental housing or evicted from their rental apartment or house if he or she is perceived to be gay or lesbian by the landlord and there is no fair-housing law to protect the person. The Legislature of Pennsylvania adopted House Bill 115 in the dead of night in November of 1999 in order to deny the domestic partner of a gay and lesbian medical benefits which the spouse of a working husband or wife enjoy if they are employed by the Penn State University system. Domestic partner benefits are becoming a more and more common feature of corporate employee benefit programs because it is the fair thing to do. Increasingly, municipalities are offering these benefits too. b. “Children are not allowed to own, posses or carry handguns except under the most restrictive conditions. Anyone trying to tie the recent rash of killings in our public schools with the Second Amendment or the NRA is a fool.” David Motko, TDR, 7/3/98 BCAD Comment - Strawman argument: This is classic strawman argument; hand guns are not the issue. Many of these killings were done by children under 18 years of age who used rifles. In many states, including Pennsylvania, children are permitted to use rifles. The NRA has promoted hunting and gun use by children under 18 years of age for years. For example, a 14 year old from Rome, PA, won the Junior level competition this year at the “the NRA’s International Youth Hunter Education Challenge on July 30th through August 3, 2001. This program “is administered by volunteer instructors at the state level and involves approximately 15,000 youths every year.”* Motko provides no data in his column to show that the NRA’s gun promoting program for children, that uses volunteers, is a more successful educational program than the professionally run public schools he derides in column after column.(*Source: TDR, 8/30/01) c. In a column entitled, “The separation of church and state,” David Motko writes, “It [the First Amendment] doesn’t say one can’t pray in schools, or put up a religious symbol in a public place. ... Now, if the extremist LPS’s [In Motko speak this means “liberals/ progressives/socialists”] position of separation of church and state is correct, how does it square with the G.I. Bill? ... [under which a] G.I. could attend any college or university regardless of its religious affiliation. ...” David Motko, TDR, 1/4/99. BCAD Comment - Negligent ignorance: First, Motko seems to be insinuating that children are not permitted to pray in public school. He is wrong. They can and do, so long as they don’t disrupt the education of other children. It is the state, i.e., the public school officials, who can’t establish prayer in public school according to U. S. Supreme Court decisions. Second, he seems to be insinuating that religious symbols can’t be put up in public places. That insinuation is wrong. However, if a town is to permit any symbols on the town square, for example, it must give equal time and place to all religious symbols. And finally, he suggests that there is an unreasonable, inconsistent application of the First Amendment as it relates to GI’s and school children. There is a difference but it is not unreasonable. There is a world of difference between G.I.’s and children. The G.I. Bill was designed for adults, and adults who had a choice to attend or not to attend college. The prohibition against state sponsored prayer in public schools applies to children, who by law have no choice about attending school. The United States Supreme Court decisions concerning prayer in public school have been designed to protect children’s freedom of religion by making it illegal to force them to listen to sectarian prayers or to participate in sectarian rituals. For an explanation about the separation of church and state, see Appendix B. d. In another column entitled, “Separating church and state: Where should the line be drawn,” Motko starts this column by writing, “The matter of separation of church and state has a few members of our community in a condition of agitated distress. But why? Let’s focus in on education and how “separation of church and state” applies here. Most socialists, progressives, liberals, atheists, and agnostics want anything involving religion removed from society. Public schools are a priority!” David Motko, TDR, 3/22/99 BCAD Comment - non sequitur: This column continues from this quote directly into a rambling, disjointed diatribe against Out Based Education, the NEA, socialism, Karl Marx, Jimmy Carter, money for public schools, Hillary Clinton, Friedrich Nietzsche, the Nazis, USSR, Cuba, and China. Nothing in the balance of his article addresses the issue of church-state separation, the Establishment Clause, contained in the First Amendment. For an explanation about church-state separation, see Appendix B. e. “The founders [of the United States] were brilliant individuals who established, arguably, the finest system of government the world has ever known, flawed as it may be. They drew from life’s experiences and incorporated into our Constitution safe guards to guarantee certain freedoms and rights they believed essential to the future of the new found republic. . . .” Later in this column he writes, the “Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on!”. . . And then he claims, “The truth is what we are witnessing today is an insidious move by the LPS’s [In Motko speak this means “liberals/progressives/socialists”] to inculcate this nation with their ideology, using left-wing unelected judges who sit in the federal courts to advance their agenda.” David Motko, TDR, 1/4/99 BCAD Comment - non sequitur: So, while Motko claims to admire the founding fathers, apparently he is no fan of the U. S. Constitution which they wrote, or of the federal judiciary they established in Art. III, sect. 1. which states, “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” According to Motko, these federal judges are “left-wing unelected judges who sit in the federal courts to advance their agenda.” How anyone who has been politically aware for the last 10 years can call the federal judiciary “left-wing” is beyond us. Most recently, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions short-circuiting the recount process following the last Presidential election was not a liberal action. f. “One of the major problems in this whole controversy [the Kyoto Treaty] is that many scientists are relying on computer models for their projects. ... The National Weather Service uses computer models to predict the weather and it can’t - with any real accuracy -tell us on Monday what will be happening on Sunday. Why is it then that we would allow climatologists, using the same technology, to hoodwink us into believing they can predict the Earth’s temperature into the unforeseen future.” David Motko, TDR, 4/29/01 BCAD Comment - Strawman argument: To suggest that all computer models are the “same technology” is similar to saying that automobiles and jet air craft are the same technology because they both use electrical wiring. Then to use this strawman argument, “same technology,” to claim climatologists are trying to “hoodwink us” is illogical and insinuates that the climatologists are dishonest. g. “Now he [Pres. Clinton] has cast a spell over the United States Senate and the rules they’ve drafted for the trial [impeachment] are pure hogwash. The Republicans oinked and grunted, and the Democrats squealedas they met behind closed doors in the old Supreme Court Chamber. When they emerged, the scheme to save the president was unveiled and they all smelled as though they had just stepped in it. The rules covering witnesses is particularly foul....The witness rule is a convoluted abomination.” David Motko, TDR, 1/16/99 BCAD Comment - Ad hominem attacks: This column is so full of name calling and ad hominem attacks that Motko sheds little clarity on the issues he is discussing. h. In an article denigrating the youth volunteer corps, AmeriCorp, Motko asserts, “When the federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed, AmeriCorps recruits in Los Angeles busied themselves sewing a quilt to send the victims. They sewed and sewed but eventually lost interest so the project lies somewhere unfinished.” David Motko, TDR, 3/26/01 BCAD Comment - Unsubstantiated allegation: No citation to a source is listed. Back to the top II. Documentation: A. Misrepresentations 8. Bogus, inadequate, missing citations a. “... Consider these facts taken from the study “Blaming Men Doesn’t Stop Domestic Violence” authored by Jim Sniechowski, Ph.D., and Judith Sherven, Ph.D. They write in part: ‘The facts are, however, that women initiate violence against men in roughly equal numbers (women 24% and men 27%)... to offset men’s larger physiques, women more often use weapons than do men (82% of women, 25% of men).” David Motko, TDR, 2/16/01 BCAD Comment - Bogus: Several points are important here. First the quote is bogus and second the statistics quoted make no statistical sense. When we traced the sources of this "study" (www.vix.com/men/battery/commentary/sniechowski.html) we found that it was merely an essay, not a “study” by the authors, and the statistics that Motko quoted made no more sense statistically in the original essay than they did in Motko’s column. Furthermore, the authors of this essay provided inadequate or no source citation for the other statistics they use. We found the authors of this essay had published a couple of books ("The New Intimacy" and "Opening to Love 365 day a Year") none of which deal with domestic violence, the subject of their essay. The authors’ claim to fame is that they are a husband/wife, talk-show host team who have also been interviewed on TV. David Motko was hired as a Special County Detective under DA Bob McGuinness to solve domestic violence and sexual assault crimes. Supposedly he should be an expert in the data relating to domestic violence crimes. However, as mentioned above, the data in the above Motko quote do not make sense statistically. In any case, following is more reliable information about the relative violence of man and women that does make sense. During the year 2000 in Pennsylvania, those killed in incidents of domestic violence included 62 women, 14 men, and 11 children. The killers included 71 men and 8 women. That is, 89% of the killers were men and 11% women. (Source: Incidents Reported by newspapers in Pennsylvania during 2000, according to the January-December 2000 Homicide Report of the PA Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Harrisburg, PA) b. “Reports told us they were good kids from good homes.” David Motko, TDR, 5/22/98 BCAD Comment: no citation c. “Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-NY, has studied the issue and says the American people are accommodating this moral shift by, in his words, defining deviancy down.” David Motko, TDR, 5/22/98 BCAD Comment - no citation. d. “In the 1996 election, David Denholm, president of the Public Services Research Council, and John Berthound, vice president of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, independently examined Federal Election Commission records and reported the following:[ list of data].” David Motko, TDR, 6/14/98 BCAD Comment - no citation. e. “Former Assistant Secretary of Education Chester E. Finn Jr. wrote in a February issue of the Wall Street Journal,.....” David Motko, TDR, 6/14/98 BCAD Comment - no date citation: what day in February? f. “One board member said, “I would never resort to the same tactics on the teachers as the teachers used against the board. I couldn’t do that.” David Motko, TDR, 6/25/98 BCAD Comment - no citation. g. “In fact, a top Democrat lawyer drafted a memo to Democrat vote counters advising them how to toss them [ballots] out.” David Motko, TDR, 11/24/00 BCAD Comment - no citation. h. “Well, Begala wrote that the states Bush carried were composed of racists, homophobs, neo-Nazi skin-heads, murderous bigots, anti-Catholics and right-wing lynch mobs.” David Motko, TDR, 12/8/00 BCAD Comment - no citation. i. “Former U.S. Secretary of Education William J. Bennett refers to this segment of the education colossus as the “blob.”’ David Motko, TDR, 5/6/01 BCAD Comment- no citation: Using this supposed quote from Bennett, Motko then repeats the term throughout his column. Back to the top II. Documentation: B. Personal Attacks and Attacks on Organizations 1. Local Individuals and Organizations a. “Asked why they’ve [Cherry Township Supervisors, Sullivan County, PA] taken no action, they responded with the collective intellect and resonance of a BB rolling around in a tin cup.” David Motko, SR, 12/7/95 BCAD Comment - Name calling. b. Motko describing some of his fellow Sullivan County citizens in 1993: “There is a difference between being gullible and outright stupid.” David Motko, SR, 10/28/93 BCAD Comment - Name calling. c. “Why is it that they [the Sullivan County Commissioners] constantly portray themselves as out of touch, inept, and feckless”.[sic] David Motko, SR, 9/9/93 BCAD Comment - Name calling. d. About a Board member wife who got a job as a teacher. “Perhaps they are for change, from bad to worse! I’m for a responsible education program, therefore no NEPOTISTS or FREELOADERS allowed!” David Motko, SR, 7/17/94 BCAD Comment - Name calling: Calling someone a “freeloader” is name calling. Calling a person a “nepotist” is another matter. Just because a husband is on the school board does not disenfranchise his wife’s civil right to accept employment in the school. e. “One of the essential elements in [Karl] Marx’s scheme is : Free education for all children in public school. I know some will say, “Motko, how in the world can you find fault with that?” Well, as is so often the case, the Devil is in the details.”..... “Fact is, our public schools are well on the way to implementing [Karl] Marx’s machination...” David Motko, TDR, 1/13/01 BCAD Comment - insinuation: He is insinuating that the public schools have become Marxist institutions. So, who are the Marxists? Is Motko also suggesting that all the children attending these schools, their teachers, their parents, and the taxpayers supporting these schools are Marxists? f. “Our tax and spend school board, always eager to fork out your tax dollars, hired the teachers.” David Motko, SR, 12/15/94 BCAD Comment - name calling: As used here, “tax and spend” is name calling. Motko presents no data to demonstrate that the school board taxed more than was needed to run the schools. “Tax and spend” is how we build schools and bridges. “Tax and spend” is what governments are empowered to do. A contrary example was President Ronald Reagan’s approach. He spent a lot but taxed too little. As a result, he created one of the largest deficits in American history. g. “Attending a [Sullivan] School Board meeting is quite a trip. It’s like being mugged and powerless to stop it.” David Motko, SR, 9/1/94 BCAD Comment - Insinuation: What does he mean? Was his freedom of speech curtailed? Was he physically stopped from participating in the meeting? He doesn’t say, but he implies that somehow the school board interfered with his civil rights or behaved like a violent thief. h. In regard to critics of the power plant proposal for Wysox, Motko writes, “The first claim [of the critics] may be the most inflammatory: ‘Pennsylvania is number ONE in premature deaths from power plant pollution.’ That, standing alone, is a pretty nebulous accusation and I for one would like to examine the research, if there is any, which supports this horrendous assertion.” David Motko, TDR, 1/28/01 BCAD Comment - insinuation: First, that assertion is not “pretty nebulous.” It is specific. Second, he insinuates the assertion is wrong, but he provides no data showing the assertion is incorrect. i. “Unfortunately, some letter writers [attacking the power plant proposal] choose to take the low road and rather than address the subject from an intellectual perspective, they attempt to impugn the character of the columnist [i.e., me, David Motko].” David Motko, TDR, 5/13/01 · “I don’t know how the power plant issue will play out, but I don’t think fear-mongering and propagandizing [by the NIMBYS] the debate serves anyone’s best interest” David Motko, TDR, 4/15/01. · “Dishonest NIMBY leaflets along with their hyperbolic speech and conduct are resulting in high levels of contamination in the public discourse.” David Motko, TDR, 4/15/01· “...the “mind polluter” [i.e., individuals who wrote the flyers opposing the power plant in Wysox] .... Couple this with the extremists’ credo that “the end justifies the means” and you have an “industrial strength” polluter on your hands.” David Motko, TDR, 4/15/01 · “The NIMBYs, hiding behind malicious, anonymous propaganda pieces, believe intelligent, honest folks will be drawn in to their cause; but is this not counter-intuitive?” David Motko, TDR, 3/31/01 · “The most recent [flyer] again lacks authorship and is a coward’s way of instilling fear in the populace by using half lies, half truths, assorted falsehoods and distorted data.” David Motko, TDR, 3/31/01 BCAD Comment - name calling and hypocrisy: Each of his complaints are characteristic of Motko’s writings as has been repeatedly documented thus far and is further documented in the following. Back to the top II. Documentation: B. Personal Attacks and Attacks on Organizations 2. State or National Figures, Groups, and Organizations a. “David Bois, lead pettifogger for the Gore/Lieberman legal team,...” David Motko, TDR, 12/8/00 BCAD Comment - Name calling: A “pettifogger” is “a lawyer who handles petty [small] cases,... a trickster, cheater, a quibbler.” (Webster’s p. 1065) David Bois is one of the top lawyers in the United States handling cases such as the Federal Government’s case against Microsoft as well as representing Al Gore in one of the most important cases in the history of the United States. b. “The election process is the means by which we keep the system clean and vibrant. As I see it, the Democrats in this election [Nov.2000] are "industrial strength political polluters.” David Motko, TDR, 11/24/00 BCAD Comment - Name calling: Motko is referring to the majority of Americans who voted to elect Al Gore President of the United States. c. “Am I saying that because the canvassing boards [in Florida] are dominated by Democrats in the subject counties everyone involved is corrupt? No but it doesn’t take an army of skunks to stink-up a town, one will do nicely.” David Motko, TDR, 11/18/00 BCAD Comment - Insinuation: Motko seems to be claiming that every Democrat involved is a skunk. However, maybe he means those few Republicans who are involved are not corrupt so they are not skunks. Or some Republicans and some Democrats are corrupt but only the Democrats are skunks. In any case, Motko’s statement crosses the line. d. “Socialists, liberals, and progressives, they’re really one in the same and are foolishly dragging this nation down the slippery slope of cultural, moral and economic decay. Oh these followers of [Carl] Marx tell us....” David Motko, TDR, 1/13/01 BCAD Comment - Name calling and insinuation: Motko insinuates that socialists, liberals and progressives are Communists. By this reasoning large segments of the American population are Communists. However, a more realistic explanation is that David Motko does not understand the differences in philosophy among liberals, progressives, socialists, and communists. e. “Sadly, as we know all too well, government-run programs are often poorly operated and terribly inefficient.” David Motko, TDR, 8/29/01 BCAD Comment - unsubstantiated allegation: “government-run programs are often poorly operated and terribly inefficient” as compared to what - private health insurance companies, the electric generation companies in California, or the 35,472 private sector companies that filed for bankruptcy in 2000? (Source: ABI World Annual US Bankruptcy Filings by District: 1997-2000) f. “The feeling in this community – and if the polls mean anything, the nation – is that Americans on a whole. want Al [Gore] and Joe [Lieberman], two political picaroons., to board their leaky boat, weigh anchor and set sail; no forwarding address necessary.” David Motko, TDR, 12/8/00 BCAD Comment - name calling: Apparently, Motko missed the news, Al and Joe won the popular vote in the United States in Nov. 2000. Second, a “picaroon” is a pirate or thief. Back to the top III. CONCLUSIONS: Back to the top III. CONCLUSIONS: B. BCAD’s Conclusions After reviewing David Motko’s writings, his “important community service” as Editor Ian Fennell put it, we consider David Motko to be a sneering name caller who makes ad hominem attacks on his neighbors, community volunteers, local officials, and national leaders. His writings regularly include pejorative insinuations and unsubstantiated allegations, and blatantly disregard or misrepresent thoroughly documented facts. The personal attacks are coupled with dyspeptic expressions of indignation which often seem out-of-control. This loose-canon tenor raises serious questions about the wisdom of publishing a columnist who is so biased, vitriolic, and disconnected from the standards of decency and fairness shared by our citizens. Furthermore, his endless, angry diatribes are patched together with illogical strawman arguments, non sequiturs, and comparing apples to oranges. Perhaps most damaging to our community is David Motko’s regular misrepresentation and distortion of information. This pattern is so extensive that The Daily Review should be printing a disclaimer before Motko’s columns warning the public that the “information” he presents is likely to be false. In short, we disagree that our community has benefitted from this called “important community service.” Although the citations in newspaper writing are not expected to meet the same rigorous standards of academic writing, citations should be sufficiently complete to make checking the source possible. David Motko often has not provided these. As a result, the accuracy of his quotes, or even their existence, are suspect because so much of his other information is misrepresented. Although we disagree with many of David Motko’s opinions and what we consider to be his frequent, unethical presentation of information, we believe that David Motko has the same Constitutionally protected right to free speech we all enjoy. That includes the right to express his opinions regardless of whether or not these are logical, fair, or based on facts. However, his right to free speech does not obligate The Daily Review to print his opinions. By selecting Motko as a regular columnist and denying equal access to those whom Motko attacks, The Daily Review has become his willing confederate, partner in his ad hominem attacks, pejorative insinuations, unsubstantiated allegation, and falsehoods about local citizens and organizations, as well as whole classes of people. We believe Editor Ian Fennell has transformed his freedom of the press, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, into a weapon used against the very citizens the Constitution was intended to protect. Motko’s convoluted columns of rambling non sequiturs, disingenuous strawman arguments, and comparing apples to oranges are printed as often as once or twice a week. Meanwhile, Editor Fennell does not print citizens’ responses in a timely way, edits the meaning of letters before these are printed, or does not print them at all. Then he permits Motko to hammer, in a follow-up column or two, anyone who has the temerity to respond to his unethical writings and is “lucky” enough to get his or her letter printed. Motko’s column responding to Clyde Breese (7/1/01 ) is an example. Thus is freedom of expression discouraged by The Daily Review. The members of the Bradford County Alliance for Democracy (BCAD) believe that the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press can be a powerful protection for a free and democratic society. However, when this privileged, Constitutionally protected position is abused by the Editor in incident after unethical incident, people’s faith in the value of the First Amendment is eroded. In this way is democracy itself undermined. In the final analysis, David Motko is not the issue. The issue is the unethical editorial practices that Editor Ian Fennell continues to practice. Back to the top IV. APPENDIX: Back to the Section II. Documentation: A.
Misrepresentations: 6. Liberals IV. APPENDIX: B. Summary of the argument for protecting church-state separation In the United States there are over 2,000 different religions and religious denominations. Many of these religions profess very different beliefs about the nature of a supreme being, the accuracy of their sacred texts as an expression of a supreme being’s will, how apparent inconsistencies in sacred texts are explained, the relationship of men and women to God, who may be a religious leader or teacher, the origin of mankind, when the earth was created, how it was formed, the relationship between men and women, whether life is sacred and whether it is moral to kill another human, what it means to live a good life, and so forth. These differences among religions can be profound and irreconcilable. Too often these disagreements have degenerated into war, particularly when one religious group gained control of the government with its police power. Unfortunately, these wars still continue in many parts of the world. In the United States we have avoided the worst manifestations of these religious conflicts by separating the state from the church in the First Amendment of our Constitution. Public schools are part of local government. Public schools are governed by elected school board directors. Public schools are supported by taxes. For these reasons, courts have long held that public schools are subject to the First Amendment. People of faith should be free to practice their religion and teach their religious faith to their children without governmental interference. For example, parents who send their children to public school should feel comfortable that their children are not being subjected to religious proselytizing in the public schools. We have learned from experience that what may seem to be an innocuous, non-denominational prayer to one person, such as a moment of silence, is experienced as unwelcome religious proselytizing by another person. This is certainly one reason why Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said, “The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.” (Everson v Bd of Ed of Ewing Township,330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947)). Separation of church and state has kept the peace among our nation’s religious communities while at the same time protecting each person’s religious liberty so long as the practice of that religion does not interfere with the religious rights and safety of others. Other United States Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions which have upheld the concept of ‘separation of church and state’ in their interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment include: · Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) (preventing religious instruction on school property during school day); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (proscribing nonsectarian prayer at beginning of schoolday); · Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) (enjoining Bible reading before class); · Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) (invalidating statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution in state funded schools); · Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (prohibiting posting copy of Ten Commandments on classroom wall); · Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (enjoining daily moment of silence for public school classrooms); · Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) (invalidating requirement to teach "creation science"); Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (striking down prayer at public school graduation ceremonies. · Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) (striking down school policy allowing student-led prayer at start of school football games.) · Roberts v. Madigan, 921 F.2d 1047 (10th Cir. 1990) (prohibiting religiously oriented books placed in classroom library and teacher silently reading Bibles during classroom hours.); · Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District, 986 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1993) (prohibiting basketball coach from sponsoring prayer at end of games and practices); and · Berger v. Rensselaer Central School Corporation, 982 F.2d 1160 (7th Cir. 1993) (enjoining religious organizations distributing Bibles in classrooms). Back to the top
|