Dishonest PNJ Sunday Editorial a Fetid Jumble of Illogical, Deceptive, Non-Factual Ramblings

 

PNJ is allowing someone to pull their strings, as today's editorial is blatantly biased, badly constructed, and fatally flawed. It's a sophomoric rant full of lies and barren of proper context...why are they genuflecting for Doug Underhill?

Like the compliant tools they increasingly appear to be, the 2 person "crack" PNJ editorial board of Lisa Nellessen Savage and Andy Marlette  offer a confusing, illogical, deceptive and non-factual jumble of ramblings in their Sunday column this morning.  

Who wrote this ridiculous garbage is a question I'm sure many are asking? Was Lisa "directed" or "encouraged" to write it?  If so, by whom?  Why?

It obviously was not the cartoonist's writing--as he has a distinctive style that is juvenile, non-standard, substandard, and very easy to spot.  

So is editor Lisa Nellessen Savage the one responsible for laying this egg--or did they let someone else ghost-write it for them?

The premise of this piece of trash opinion rant is simple:  Doug is great, he is being ganged-up on, he's a "victim" and the rest of us are terrible people for not jumping up to quickly use tax dollars to pay Doug's lawyer (that he hasn't paid).  Everything we do is controversial, and oh, by the way,  we need to be nicer, too.  😃

This piece of garbage smells worse than their last offering directed our way.  It smells so bad, it's like a pile of rotting fish marinated in a blend of sulfur, dog feces, and vomit.  And it's off-base, to boot.

PNJ lose the logic persuasion high-ground as they conflate their opinion piece with other, older issues---many of which the PNJ obviously do not understand and a majority of which we've already addressed.

--PNJ intimate we have a poor relationship with the ECSO.  This is a lie.  We negotiated a 4-year deal with them 3 years ago and we have a good working relationship with our LEOs and it is a relationship that's improving!

--PNJ blame us for the problems in EMS.  This is dishonest.  We are legislative-not executive- officials.  We were not aware of the simmering issues in EMS--yet once we were told the board has acted to address these problems and we are still working on them with new leadership.

--PNJ editorial dishonestly, inaccurately portrays a recent tense meeting with design team DPZ as us being "disrespectful."  This is dishonest.  In truth-- we were restrained and polite yet directed in our frustration with this group's failure to answer basic economic analysis questions that had been previously requested multiple times by the BCC.

--PNJ purposely omit pertinent facts about the social-media conduct at issue by Doug Underhill that drew the lawsuit:  Doug Underhill was in violation of Existing Board Policy when the conduct which drew the lawsuit happened.  (Hint:  you lose credibility PNJ when you Demand we follow policy on one hand regarding legal representation---yet you purposely misinform, by omission, your readers when you fail to disclose that Underhill was violating a different board policy when he drew the lawsuit)

--PNJ fail to accurately describe our policy on legal representation; they omit the FACT that the board MAY pay or we MAY make alternative findings and deny payment. (pretty important detail to leave out)

--PNJ gloss over the fact that Doug engaged in ad hominem attacks and THAT led to the suit.  Even if the judge says he has absolute immunity to say whatever he wants to---does that make this conduct right and correct?  Should taxpayers pay to defend actions like this (calling citizens names online) that are not necessary?

--PNJ portray a recent favorable ruling as "proof" that Doug's action was in the "...public interest..."--ignoring the reality that more than one elected official has been involved in conduct described as "being in the course of their official office" but "NOT serving a public purpose/in the public interest."  In these instances--where conduct did not/does not serve a public purpose--paying the legal fees could appear improper.

--PNJ feebly attempt to portray the entire board as swimming in controversy, ineptitude, and dysfunction.  But this is untrue.  This is the strawman they want to build in order to knock it down.  It is PNJ's unsuccessful and non persuasive attempt to draw a "moral equivalence" between and among each of the board members--a projection of "guilt by association."  But the fact of the matter is there is no moral equivalence.  Four of us do our jobs with no drama, no problems, and no lawsuits.   Conversely-

-one board member appears to thrive on conflict and feast on controversy--the same guy who has had more lawsuits filed against him than any other county commissioner in Escambia's History.  A guy that publicly attacks his constituents calling them "P______y" (think pejorative term for female genitalia)  and other choice names I won't repeat here.  He calls High School students expressing their First Amendment right of free speech "Miscreants" and "Insurgents." Yet, somehow the PNJ will not call him out individually.  Instead, they fecklessly seek some sort of weird "Jelly Doughnut" discipline that punishes those not guilty while absolving the one trouble maker of any culpability. Yes, they attempt to punish us all with this lashing in the paper---and in the process they lionize the one guy that causes all the drama on the board!

Wow.  Who is pulling this PNJ editor's strings?  Or, does she just long to be Doug's water-carrying, sycophantic pom-pom girl?

Who knows the answer, who knows why this happened?  But really, what difference does it make?  More and more it just seems as if these off-base rants by the corrupted, biased PNJ are the "trees falling in the forest, not making a sound" But whatever is going on---it's really strange!