Since Pawlowski's sentencing, I have been crowing somewhat about this blog. Over the past decade I have taken city hall to task over more issues than I can remember. While my advocacy for the traditional park system is a constant, I also defended the former merchants of Hamilton Street. During that period I held some public meetings, which activated some people, who still attend city council meetings to this day.
During this past week of crowing, I have also taken the Morning Call to task for their bias on numerous issues. In addition to being a cheerleader for Pawlowski until the FBI raid, their coverage of the NIZ is nothing but a virtual promotion for the private interests involved.
A new antagonist, using a pseudonym, popped up in recent comments. Bob wrote, It is entirely reasonable to ask why you didn't call the FBI if you knew this to be true. You won't answer the question, so I'll speculate: you didn't because you had suspicions, but no proof. So perhaps the corruption wasn't as clear back then as your recent posts have implied. Either that, or you were strangely unwilling to support law enforcement in making Allentown a better place. At first I thought that Bob was an apologist for the Pawlowski regime, while my current hunch is that he's affiliated with the Morning Call.
To imply that a citizen journalist mis-served the community by not contacting authorities on various issues is taking kill the messenger to a new low. My bad news for Bob is that this blog will continue to scrutinize Allentown, and the institutions which are suppose to serve it.
blogger addressing city council on one issue or another
When I first saw Bob's comments, my assumption was that he was affiliated with the Morning Call.
ReplyDeleteHe tried to make the nonsensical argument that because you wrote about the corruption in Allentown, you should have also contacted the FBI about it. His argument is irrelevant, and an attempt at distraction.
The issue is that the Morning Call DIDN'T write about it, and in fact helped cover things up for Pawlowski. Their silence was bought with favors (government built parking deck for their employees; having their building gerrymandered into the NIZ, etc.) from Pawlowski's City Hall.
The Call's lack of honest reporting allowed Pawlowski's corruption to expand from having his purchasing agent send out campaign solicitations to city vendors early in Pawlowski's tenure, to obvious pay-to-play transactions later on.
While Pawlowski was responsible for his actions, the Morning Call allowed it to happen. The struggling newspaper wasn't about to cut their own throat and embarrass a potential life line.
That's the real issue, and the one that "Bob" doesn't want discussed.
If you should have reported Pawlowski's corruption, how does "Bob" justify the Morning Call's silence?
ReplyDeleteUsing "Bob's" logic, surely the Morning Call should be even more responsible for their involvement in keeping the corruption from the public (including law enforcement).
The Morning Call is two BLOCKS away from City Hall. They have PAID reporters that attend most, if not all, City Council meetings. They have access to the Mayor and others in City government that you (as a blogger) or an average citizen doesn't have.
Yet the Morning Call wasn't able to recognize the largest municipal corruption scandal in the region's history UNTIL AFTER THE FBI RAIDED CITY HALL? Maybe they were just too busy eating their way through local festivals, or covering Christmas light displays.
Even if you assume the best and don't want to believe that the Morning Call was involved in covering things up, what's the alternative? That the Morning Call is just too INCOMPETENT to recognize municipal corruption occurring right under their noses? In the largest city in their coverage area? In the same city where their offices and "BEST" reporters are located?
Either way, anybody who continues to pay for a subscription to the Call, or believe anything it says on other subjects, is a fool. Why would anyone pay for lies or (at best) incompetence?
You'd be better off buying the National Enquirer in the supermarket checkout line.
Unknown@6:24, while I will continue to take the Morning Call to task when necessary, I'm grateful that we still have a newspaper, and will continue my 40 year subscription. Although I consider them often bias and sometimes cronies of several institutions which they should be scrutinizing, they still remain the primary source of news in the Lehigh Valley. I shudder at the thought of them ceasing publication.
ReplyDeleteThe Morning Call, for all of its faults, is still the newspaper of record for Allentown. They should be given the opportunity to recover from this. But that recovery won't start until the Call admits that it could have done better. How are we supposed to have a city we can be proud of when we don't have a newspaper we can be proud of?
ReplyDeleteIn one-party town, I just do not require a "Fourth Estate" that openly as well as proudly functions as an all-left wing informercial all the time. Bill White is a paid propagandist, not some higher moral authority. Forward to progress in the City Without Limits, Comrades.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully,
ROLF OELER
Bob wants a blogger to report corruption to the FBI? The corruption was hiding in plain sight where even an intern at the Morning Call should have seen it. Yes, the corruption is the newspaper turning a blind eye in order to protect its favors from the city....and perhaps others.
ReplyDeleteMM - "Unknown" here.
ReplyDeleteI also don't enjoy the thought of being without a newspaper, but without the kind of mea culpa coming from the Call that Aaron White suggests (which I could accept), what do we really have?
The only way to make them change is through withholding subscriptions and advertising dollars (which are linked).
I see no evidence of the Morning Call wanting to make the change on its own. Quite the opposite, they seem to be doubling down on biased, one-sided reporting. In some cases it borders on the unethical.
They won't disclose that Reilly owns their building when they write glowing articles on the NIZ. They won't disclose that Susan Wild works for their law firm when they write articles on the Wild-Nothstein race. They refused to examine affidavits from Nothstein's supposed accusers when they ran one of their many hit pieces on him. They're now running glowing reports of Wild's cooperation with the FBI after the raid, yet won't look at why she was hired in the first place (before the FBI was known to be investigating) or at her connection to Mike Fleck as early as 2013.
They also seem to want to perpetuate the lie that the corruption in Allentown's City Hall was limited to the acts investigated by the FBI, and that the ethics there have magically changed with Pawlowski leaving but most everybody else still in place. I don't remember a single article about the failures of those on City Council (including the now-interim Mayor), who were at best derelict in their oversight duties. They also seem hell-bent on spreading the myth that Ed Pawlowski was somehow responsible for the new buildings in Allentown, and not the municipal welfare program (NIZ) granted by the state.
And that's just what they've been writing about LATELY.
Everything seems to be geared toward keeping the status quo, and the status quo in Allentown sucks.
Think about it.If the F.B.I. investigated every anonymous tip they received they would not have time to do anything else.I always thought some insider with knowledge of the Pawloski schemes got hung up on an I.R.S. beef and decided to spill the beans on Pawloski .
ReplyDeleteWilliam Sherman -
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point.
And imagine how much more likely (or quickly) that investigation occurs if there are articles written about the corruption or wrongdoing inside City Hall.
Or maybe Pawlowski gets cold feet about actually committing his crimes since he knows they will be discovered and publicized in the newspaper.
Either way, the people of Allentown would have been better served by the Morning Call.
The Morning Call is dead.
ReplyDeleteAll corruption cases start with an informant; it is the person who feels aggrieved that in some manner he is being ignored or dissed or unfairly pressured or left out of the deal/contract/job/whatever that starts the ball rolling. Because they have insider knowledge of the "business" they are able to provide sufficient initial "proof" of the matters that law enforcement decides to proceed....to invest the resources & manpower to build a case. The mechanics of building the case...documents/tapes of conversations, immunity deals, yadda yadda are frequently time consuming and seemingly maddening deals and questionable prosecutional discretions are exercised...and that is the norm. Making laws, sausage, and prosecuting cases are not pretty to observe, and that's why it's mostly done behind the curtain.
ReplyDeleteOne of the federal prosecutors who investigated the Pawlowski case later commented that Susan Wild had nothing to do with the corruption in Allentown City Hall. She may not be perfect, but she had nothing to do with Pawlowski's shenanigans.
ReplyDeleteThat said, she is not a perfect candidate (nobody is), and the Morning Call is ignoring her shortcomings while hunting high and low for anything they can dig up on her opponent.
The Morning Call is still capable of quality journalism. Their coverage of Pawlowski's trial was really good.
But they've fallen significantly in the years since they did top notch investigative work like they did on Mark Mendelson and John Karoly, Jr. a decade ago.