An Open Letter To The Islander

“We cannot make good news out of bad practice.” - Edward R. Murrow, CBS News

Dear Bonner:

Can I call you Bonner?

Your publication and its predecessors have been a part of my life since I first learned to read but, unfortunately, you and I have never met. The Islander of the 60’s was never far from our summer breakfast table and, I’ll confess, it often valiantly served a second life protecting that table during many a late night blue crab cleaning session. Throughout the 70’s my grandparents faithfully picked up the paper next to Ernie Cagnina’s front door on their way out of the IGA. I briefly flirted with working for Mr. Warren on the early 80’s Islander after graduating with a journalism degree but more schooling and youthful dreams of grandeur ended those thoughts. During the parking wars of late the 90’s and early 2000’s I periodically submitted opinion pieces or letters to the editor, that being you by then, but was never able to make your cut. And in the last few years I have developed a Tuesday morning habit of clicking on the paper’s website to get the latest word, at least your version, from my favorite place on earth.

So if a first name basis is too familiar, my apologies up front. I do not, however, apologize for what I am about to say. The Islander, as I have known and cherished it, has lost its way. It is a sad thing to watch and, well, to read. Your January 27th editorial entitled “Frenzy” is a confused and meandering jumble of bitterness and ironically, considering the charges you level, a feverish but clumsy attempt to settle scores. It does a disservice to your targets, your readers and your advertisers on so many levels it is difficult to choose where to begin. But I will give it my best shot.


Well before the election in November, you began inferring that the blog Our Anna Maria and its contributors are liars cowering behind a curtain of anonymity. But you have never identified the supposed lies. You have not named the liars by real name or user name. You have not sought a retraction or correction of any stated fact or assertion in the blog, nor has anyone else ever done so. You portray the bloggers and their readers as some shadowy cabal bent on the destruction of progress but you cite no instance where the blog caused such destruction. You dismiss the blog as insignificant yet you rant about its divisiveness. Perhaps most troubling is your habit of referencing the blog in reported stories and editorials without proper attribution, a journalistic no-no that, while not strictly plagiarism, is roundly considered to be…well…icky by your colleagues. It is just not done by professionals. As for anonymity, my name is on every post I have submitted as are the names of the major contributors. My posts are primarily satirical and lighthearted but all are factually supportable. Other posts address various issues of concern factually and timely. No legitimate submissions are edited, screened or rewritten - can you say the same thing for submissions to The Islander? - and inappropriate content, on the rare occasion it appears, is removed. Detractors of the blog may scoff at having to be a registered contributor but does anything get published in The Islander without your approval?

Recording history is the function, and some say the duty, of any credible news organization. Re-writing history is not. Honestly Bonner, this is important: Did you not hesitate last week, even for a moment, as you typed “…we endorsed Commissioner John Quam, only to be sniped at for saying he’s done well running the meetings…” knowing full well that not only did you not endorse Commissioner Quam, you childishly sought to humiliate him less than a week before the election? I urge your readers to re-read your "endorsement" and decide for themselves whether you are re-writing history. If you were not compelled to look up “disingenuous” on dictionary.com before hitting the save button on that one, you should have been. Yuck. And if your haughty dismissal of the outrage and disdain so many readers expressed over your attack on Commissioner Quam as insignificant “sniping” is indicative of the respect you have for those readers, perhaps they should re-evaluate their need of the product you deliver. You did John a tremendous disservice. I know it, your readers know it, your advertisers know it and, importantly, you know it. Rewriting history three months later is not going to change that fact. But perhaps an apology would help. Just saying.

As easy as it would be to couch your unrelenting support of all things PAR as a quid pro quo to important advertisers, I will not. The reality of small town politics and the business interests that have a vested interest in those politics is that everyone knows and sees each other outside of the lion’s den. I liken it to the old cartoon where the Wolf and the Sheep Dog show up at the pasture every morning, nod hello, punch their time cards and proceed to beat the snot out each other all day long while just doing their respective jobs. At day's end they punch out, say “Night, Sam” and “Night, Fred” and then show up the next day to do it all again. Nothing personal, just business. The reality for small town newspapers is that they are, or should be, out in that pasture taking it all down but they don’t get to punch out. They must balance the truth of what is happening against the inevitability that it may not please the advertising Wolf. It’s a difficult task but many papers do it well. The good ones ask questions. They observe. They dig. And they edit. Reporters are not stenographers. They do not simply regurgitate commission minutes and re-assemble old news stories. They ask why and how. They investigate and substantiate and they do not take what is said at face value, even if it is said by their biggest advertiser. Most importantly, they tell the whole story. You know full well that to tell your readers that Mr. Stoltzfus has targeted PAR and only PAR is a purposeful deception. PAR is the lone developer seeking approval of site plans in the ROR district these days. They are pushing envelopes, challenging norms and upsetting old ways. And they are doing it aggressively and as rapidly as the law allows, the smart thing to do if you’re a developer who knows changes are coming. PAR is the only developer shaking things up so they are, by default, the only target of inquiry. I know that, you know that, PAR knows that. But do your readers know that? Not if they rely on you for information. And that is the shame, your shame.

As I have said before, PAR just needs to follow the rules, stay in their lane and do good things. In concept, the projects they propose are good things but even the City’s lawyer admits the current rules are in flux and require review and the city planner admits to significant mistakes requiring a reassessment of PAR’s site plan du jour. As a result, the parameters of PAR’s lane, so to speak, are a matter of continuing debate. Did you remind your readers of that? You did not. You chose instead to demonize the messenger, Mr. Stoltzfus, the easy target.

No one, I repeat NO ONE, is seeking to “rid” the city of PAR, as you so sardonically suggest, and I am certainly not supportive of anyone who would try. PAR and its principals are good people, in my estimation, with ideas and resources that will add depth and substance to this little village. Anna Maria wants PAR but on Anna Maria's terms not PAR's.

I have never met Mr. Stoltzfus but I am a fan of his efforts. I have met Mr. Coleman and have spent significant time discussing PAR’s vision with him. That vision is admirable and innovative but, perhaps necessarily, it stretches the bounds of what the City has previously encountered. Change is good but it is also difficult. It requires new thinking, leadership and initiative, things you have actively called for...remember? On October 28, 2009 you urged the voters of Anna Maria to elect a leader who would shake things up. In fact, you said:

“Business as usual is not good business”

“We just think there’s room for new ideas, fresh thoughts and, especially, initiative.”

“We’d like to see leaders who lead the way...and bring new ways to... legislate, because it’s needed.”

Be careful what you ask for, huh Bonner? One can debate his methods but to excoriate Mr. Stoltzfus after breathlessly endorsing him as someone capable of “filling loopholes in old laws” - your words, again - and then hoping your readers have forgotten your recommendations, is beyond disingenuous. It is intellectually dishonest, gratuitous and opportunistic.

I look forward to The Islander every week. Many do. But get it right, Bonner. Just get it right.

To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. - Edward R. Murrow, CBS News

All the best,

Bill Yanger