View Single Post
  #20  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2010, 2:21 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTinSF View Post
I think you're being a little harsh. The article is just reporting about these letters the Peninsula cities are sending. The "Should have resulted in a reevaluation of other alternatives" bit is what one of the letters says. It's not up to the reporter to explain the logic (or lack of logic) of the city.
I suppose that maybe I was a little harsh, but I still think it's pretty sloppy journalism to not even mention when something is blatantly false. Maybe at least include a link to one of the past stories that her own paper has done? If you're just going to state exactly what the letter says without adding any context or commenting on whether the facts are correct, why not simply reprint the letter verbatim?

She does go into a little bit of detail with other parts, but completely leaves out the fact that the judge dismissed every single one of the complaints regarding the peninsula section of track. If I were reading the article without knowing more, I would certainly assume that part of the EIR being revised dealt with the peninsula section.
Reply With Quote