Phelps and Gillespie had had every opportunity to know the causes of his firing. They chose not to attend meetings in which he was discussed. It's all on them.
I’m asking a question: the phrase, as a descriptor, casts doubt upon the validity of the statement. What has the reporter done to confirm the statement as having been made with no evidence? Moreover, at what point does having an opinion require supporting evidence?
I’m asking a question about journalism, not making a point.
I attended the meeting in person. The two school board members disrupted, interrupted, and continued to badger the chair to give reasons for Taylor's termination, claiming that he was fired without cause and that the attorneys are now looking for cause after the fact.
These school board members have the responsibility to attend meetings. Taylor waived his right to a hearing. That is not an opinion. The two women were not present during the closed meetings in which the termination was discussed. That is not an opinion.
Last week's meeting is archived, meaning the reporter could, and most likely did, watch it in its entirety, seeing that Gillespie and Phelps were making accusations for which they provided no evidence. It seems to me, reading your comment and your explanation of it, that you are trying to cast doubt on the validity of what is reported here. which is that Gillespie and Phelps accused the board of firing Taylor without cause, knowing they were not present at the closed sessions, and providing no evidence to support that accusation.
Phelps and Gillespie continued with accusations that attorneys are looking for cause, without giving any evidence of that and accusing the chair of lying, also with no evidence. They are members of the board. They were making unfounded accusations. Ms. Phelps made it clear that she intends to continue this behavior at future meetings. The greatest mistake was that school board counsel was not present. Due to the behavior of two members of the school board, one who has vowed to continue disrupting meetings, counsel should be present from now on at every general meeting, special meeting, and work session.
This article is factual. There is no evidence of political bias by the reporter.
Very good additional information. I happen to think that the school board is dysfunctional, and the board of supervisors, too, but that’s my opinion.
But my question still remains: what is the standard for a reporter to state that a comment is made without evidence? I’m sincerely interested in the answer to that question from a journalistic standpoint, not a political standpoint.
What is the standard for tagging the phrase “without evidence “ onto various and sundry quotes and comments from people? It tends to happen, so it seems to me, when the politics of the reporter and the speaker are at odds.
Phelps and Gillespie had had every opportunity to know the causes of his firing. They chose not to attend meetings in which he was discussed. It's all on them.
I’m asking a question: the phrase, as a descriptor, casts doubt upon the validity of the statement. What has the reporter done to confirm the statement as having been made with no evidence? Moreover, at what point does having an opinion require supporting evidence?
I’m asking a question about journalism, not making a point.
I attended the meeting in person. The two school board members disrupted, interrupted, and continued to badger the chair to give reasons for Taylor's termination, claiming that he was fired without cause and that the attorneys are now looking for cause after the fact.
These school board members have the responsibility to attend meetings. Taylor waived his right to a hearing. That is not an opinion. The two women were not present during the closed meetings in which the termination was discussed. That is not an opinion.
Last week's meeting is archived, meaning the reporter could, and most likely did, watch it in its entirety, seeing that Gillespie and Phelps were making accusations for which they provided no evidence. It seems to me, reading your comment and your explanation of it, that you are trying to cast doubt on the validity of what is reported here. which is that Gillespie and Phelps accused the board of firing Taylor without cause, knowing they were not present at the closed sessions, and providing no evidence to support that accusation.
Phelps and Gillespie continued with accusations that attorneys are looking for cause, without giving any evidence of that and accusing the chair of lying, also with no evidence. They are members of the board. They were making unfounded accusations. Ms. Phelps made it clear that she intends to continue this behavior at future meetings. The greatest mistake was that school board counsel was not present. Due to the behavior of two members of the school board, one who has vowed to continue disrupting meetings, counsel should be present from now on at every general meeting, special meeting, and work session.
This article is factual. There is no evidence of political bias by the reporter.
Who do we know that uses the word, “moreover?”
Very good additional information. I happen to think that the school board is dysfunctional, and the board of supervisors, too, but that’s my opinion.
But my question still remains: what is the standard for a reporter to state that a comment is made without evidence? I’m sincerely interested in the answer to that question from a journalistic standpoint, not a political standpoint.
What is the standard for tagging the phrase “without evidence “ onto various and sundry quotes and comments from people? It tends to happen, so it seems to me, when the politics of the reporter and the speaker are at odds.
What's your point?