Peter Sullivan,
I once liked you because I thought you were a politician who truly served the people of Manchester, but it is clear that you cannot tell the truth to save your life and you are now trying to smear a messenger who reported some unfortunate truths about you. It's really too bad, but I have lost all respect for you. I hope your Democratic colleagues see through your lies and misbehavior and vote for a Democrat who truly understands what it means to serve the city and the state of New Hampshire. It would be great if your Democratic colleagues voted for someone who understands the constitution, respects the founders of this country and stands for liberty instead of government theft. Now that would be something. Now, those reading this may sense some sarcasm in my writing, because it is what people like you, Peter, have made them accustomed to, but truly, I mean these words fully. I wish that both Republicans and Democrats would vote for people who view service to the people, honesty and integrity as their top aim, instead of people who serve themselves and hate anyone who opposes them like you.
It is true that I joined the Free State Project, but I did so with my wife because we liked the idea that there was a state left that honored the constitution of the United States and had a long tradition of holding up our founders' ideals. I informed both Manchester Express publishers of this fact when I interviewed for the job as editor of the paper. All three of us agreed that my political affiliations (I am actually a libertarian-conservative Republican) have nothing to do with a balanced coverage in the newspaper. Are all editors supposed to be Democrats? Is that how it works?
When I interviewed politicians for news stories, I did in fact mention my personal opinion about the subject I was covering. I did this as a matter of fact, so that they (including you) would know where I was coming from. I was hoping that by doing this they would be more open with me, and that they would, through my coverage and writing and the whole of the Express publication, see that I am not biased, and that I give both sides a fair shake. That was a principle I informed the owners of the publication about and that they did not stop me from exercising. It seemed to work. I had people like Mike Lopez, the chairman of the board of aldermen, also a Democrat, say that he had never seen more balanced coverage from a journalist. State senators, such as Lou D'Allesandro and Ted Gatsas, who is also an alderman, had a similar opinion of me. Ask them if you don't believe me.
What I never did do was voice open disdain for Obama and I never did use the word "hate." Those are bald-faced lies. I absolutely asked questions about the agenda the current president was going to invoke during his campaign and what people thought of that. I did it concerning his opponent as well. You know, that is what good journalists do. It's too bad that we didn't have more of them during that campaign, and then we wouldn't be in this mess that we're in now.
As for coverage of the Free State Project in the Express, I did so because some of the events that the group organized were actually newsworthy. I did not participate in any events during my tenure at the Express. Am I supposed to ignore them completely? It matters not whether politicians view a group of citizens to be pests. As a matter of fact, good journalists should probably devote more attention to people who politicians believe are pests. It is their job, and most of them don't do it well. I did. I did that job very well. And as anyone who has any interest in the truth can do, because all back editions of the Manchester Express are online at
http://www.manchexpress.com, they can go and read those editions and make up their mind for themselves on whether I covered the issues fairly. I always wrote balanced articles in the Express, always had every side of the issue in the story, and I took pride in that work.
Do I believe my writing is inspired by God? Well, sure. Why wouldn't I. I am a believing Christian who believes that I work in service to God. Everything I do, I do in an effort to further my service to Him above all. If you think there is something wrong with that, then I can't help you. But I can assure you that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States doesn't just protect the press and give it freedom to attack politicians like yourself, but it also protects the free exercise of religion in the public sphere. How could a Christian not exercise their religion in their daily life? It is kind of the whole point of being Christian. Do you expect me to only be Christian on Sunday, then a politician-serving propaganda writer the rest of the week? That doesn't make any sense, now, does it? Or should all Christians be fed to lions like in the old days? What are you saying, Peter?
Now as to not disclosing my political views in the newspaper. I wanted to. I asked the publishers if I could. One said yes, the other said no, so that was it. So instead, I make sure I let everyone know who I interviewed what my opinion was, so that they could help me understand their point of view better and they could give me the information to write the most balanced story possible. I made a lot of great contacts I wouldn't have otherwise that way.
Now, I know this may sound unorthodox to a crowd that believes journalists should have no opinion at all, but to me such an opinion is illogical. How can you be a breathing, thinking, political being and not have an opinion? That's just ludicrous. So, what ends up happening is that journalists write bias into their work, because they need an outlet for that opinion. Rather than write biased articles, I wrote articles that were balanced because I did let people know my opinion and got them to open up into a bigger discussion. I believe it is the right thing to do, and I would do it again.
You mention my blog? Have you ever heard of a columnist for a newspaper? They write opinion columns? Yeah. It's their opinion. And you know what else some of them do at smaller papers? They write news articles, too. And sometimes they also edit other people's work. That's right. It's all about labeling. If you label something opinion, then it's opinion. If you label it as a news story, then you better be fully sure that it's balanced with all sides of an issue and doesn't have any of your personal opinion in it. Read my articles people. I beg you to find one you think is biased. I don't think you can. My blog never pretends to be for news articles. It is simply my opinion -- always there -- clear as day.
Your interpretation of some of the sites I link to on my blog is obviously skewed with charged words. You call them "radical"? Well, are some of the things they say radical? Sure. But you know who else was radical? The founders of this country who thought it was better to throw off tyranny than to suffer through it. You know, they were pretty radical, too, don't you think? The bottom line is that all facts, viewpoints, positions and opinions should be considered with an open mind, and they should be accepted or defeated using reason and only reason. You cannot defeat someone by smearing them, saying their Web site links to radical Web sites. Anyone with half a brain can look themselves at those links and consider the nature of them on their own. Tell me why you disagree with me or tell others the same, and then we might see some civility out of you again.
People, the reason why Peter Sullivan has chosen to smear me here is because I accurately reported that he might have been the cause of damage to a wall at City Hall. He was yelling at a constituent during that person's three minutes of public speech to the full board, and shouting back and forth with a restaurant owner in his district during the same public meeting. Then he threw a temper tantrum in the back room. Later, when being interviewed for the article on the record, Peter called his colleagues by a derogatory word. I reported what he said. On a television show where I often voiced my opinion, I noted that such conduct was not suited for an alderman, and that he should resign. I was right to do so.
Peter, this is all about trying to smear me when you don't have a leg to stand on for your conduct so that you can try to trick people into voting for you again. For their sake, I hope it doesn't happen. I care about Manchester, yet it seems you only care about yourself. You want to keep this up? I'll start writing to newspapers. I'm pretty sure they'll publish me.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Manuse
Derry, N.H.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
