Appalled

I was appalled at the article on the front page of The Community News on March 8, 2024. There was such a biased on Mike Olcott’s victory, and inaccuracies at every turn. 

In the third paragraph, Rogers referred to “his opponents as the Republican power establishment in the state.” Rogers is the establishment candidate and we the people (63% of us) chose someone who would indeed fight for our values. 88% of the people in Parker County voted for school choice in the March 2022 primary election and it became one of the GOP‘s priorities (written as parental rights and empowerment).

In the fourth paragraph, Rogers is quoted “the millions of dollars spent spreading lies about his record and nonstop impugning of my integrity were just too much to overcome” as well as saying, one of the real losers was representative government.      Representative government spoke. 63% of us voted for Michael Olcott vs. 37% for Rogers. Mike’s contributions totaled $515,869 and Rogers contributions totaled $940,688 ($50,000 was from our current Speaker of the House who gave the Democrats chairmanship positions and often voted with the Democrats). This money went to spreading countless lies about Mike.

In paragraph six, we need to remember the people of Texas voted for Paxton after all concerns were revealed. Rogers did seek to impeach our most conservative AG , so yes, his opposition to Paxton and support of this impeachment negatively affected his race.

In paragraph 7, the writer, quotes Rogers again on how “history will prove”…this and that… Basically how he was right. History has proven that the people have chosen a new person to represent them.  Calling Paxton corrupt and Abbott a liar is not something Rogers would have done a year ago. He is deflecting this loss and blaming everyone but himself. Losing doesn’t necessarily have to mean being a sore loser.

The article goes on to actually seem unbiased related to the Pct. 4 Constable race, and the State Board of Education race, mentioning Jones and Hall is the winners, and remarking fairly about the races. Well done on paragraph 8 through 12!

Then, however, in paragraph 13 through 16, the author truly shows his or her lack of information. The statistics are all off too. Goldman and Dorris are not in a runoff (statistics are wrong). Goldman and O’Shea are! Roger Williams won 77.64% of the vote, not 88.5%, and Yarborough won 33.94% with Hagenbuch at 36.38%.

It is sad that people who won fair and square are not given an unbiased write up. Speaking derogatorily about the candidate the people elected is a very bad decision. In essence, it is speaking negatively about the people themselves for making a bad decision. Not something a local paper should be doing, in my opinion. 

I’m thankful the people who read the community news are not as gullible as their paper assumes they are.

- Susan Minnich

Response

As to the charge of bias in the story, I would point out that it is our responsibility to reach out to candidates for comments after an election, and we did that. Glenn Rogers, Scott Jones, and Jerry Stockon all responded either by phone or with a written statement.

As he did all through the campaign, Michael Olcott did not provide a comment in response to my request. Had he done so, his quotes would have been reported alongside Rogers’ comments.

If there was bias, it was on the part of a candidate who was given numerous opportunities during the campaign to provide information to this newspaper and did not. We reported and quoted what was said by the candidates who responded.

As to the other issues in the letter, please see the correction on page 1.

- Randy Keck