Council asks no questions about Clerk Emily Lipovan's harassment allegations
The headline to this article really got me fuming -- and not just because I'm a friend and supporter of Emily Lipovan, but because it shows the journalistic ineptitude (or perhaps malice) of the PD.
EMILY LIPOVAN HAS MADE NO HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS!!!!!!
Even the article points that out when it states in the third paragraph:
Councilman Joe Santiago said last week that Lipovan told him Sweeney sexually harassed her. On Monday, Lipovan publicly accused Sweeney of directing one of his top aides to snoop on her computer, but she declined to comment on the sexual harassment allegations.
Seems that the only person who's made allegations of harassment here is Joe Santiago. Everybody assumes that the harassment, if any, was directed at Emily. Lest we forget that the office of Clerk of Council employs and supervises numerous people. Has anyone considered the possibility that the harassment, if any, is more universal and that Emily may not have been a direct target of harassment and is not sure of her footing about making such allegations on behalf of others, i.e. maybe they don't want someone to make such allegations on their behalf? So instead she told Marty he had to knock it off, because she couldn't stand by and watch it anymore and Marty's reaction based upon ego or whatever to Emily's admonitions is what caused this rift? No, no, that couldn't be possible, that's ridiculous -- only because it will sell less newspapers and isn't as juicy a story for the conspiracy theorists to grab on to.
Folks, I don't care about the PD's need to sell newspapers. I question the efficacy and public benefit of resolving topics as sensitive as these under the glare of the public eye. It serves no purpose, no public good; it merely sells newspapers for the PD and feeds the increasingly voyeuristic appetite of the citizenry created by reality t.v.
I'm sure the anonymous posters to my blog will tell me that I am deluded and out of touch and, imply that I haven't been around long enough to know what's really going on. Seems to me their comments have been largely driven by what's been reported in the media. My information comes from better sources than that. And, even if my sources are wrong and the commenters are proven right, I still have posted from a position of equanimity and not hysteria.
CEP
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I know almost all of the Councilmembers, including Lipovan and Sweeney. It strikes me that a) Marty Sweeney has neither the demeanor nor the history to sexually harrass Lipovan, or anyone else for that matter; b) Lipovan has used the media before for her own benefit when she saw fit to go public with an "allegation" against another gentleman with a spotless record, who happened to be of Arabic ethnicity, six years ago within a month after the occurrence of 911--thus, Lipovan's credibility on the sexual harrassment, whether she's claiming it occurred or suggestively refusing to rule it out, is an issue. That being said, obviously the root of all this is a political power grab: Sweeney, for whatever reason, is seen as vulnerable and some other councilmember is testing the waters for a shot at the council presidency. Remember: Sweeney, just a week ago, was the first council member to acknowledge that the City Council may be too big and could be reduced. When someone starts threatening elected official's plum jobs, they tend to get testy.
I believe that it again goes to the headline writers vs. the writers issue. Recently, Pho wrote about the inaccuracy of a headline. I commented on BFD about the Barak Obama hesitation of Great Lakes Water headline. He wasn't even at the event, wasnn't the one talking, and it was a supported or his who hesitated to speak for the Senator. Seems reasonalbe to me.
Start looking at the headlines which when I was in Journalism 101 was to reflect the meat of the story. Too often today, the headlines are ancillary to the body of the text.
Proabably, has something to do with writers not writing their own headlines.
Sensationalism supposedly sells. Feel good human interest doesn't.
What a sad sad place we are if this is so.
Oh and I heard from another source that supposedly the comments attributed to Sweeney about the reduction of council were supposedly "off-the-record" but the PD reported it anyway.
Of course, the rumors of the seventeen member council have been rumbling for a few years. I hear there is a circling of the wagons and supposedly the "ineffective" councilpeople are the ones most at risk. I ask you who is going to decide who is ineffectual and what will be the criteria? My instinct would be that it won't be the council people although that is supposedly where this idea started. Be careful what you wish for fellows you may not get what you want.
Making deals in this sort of atmosphere rather than truly deciding in a rational manner on what is best for the constituents could have dire circumstances.
Remember the quote of a major contributor to political campaigns who said something to the effect there are too many palms to grease when you want action.
City Council could be playing into the big guys plans of weakening the legislative branch of the city so that regionalism can take on the look they want or then maybe the time is right to change to bigger wards and council at large members, but are you sure that a total reduction with every thing remaining the same is the way to go. Probably not, but it appears to me that so far that has been the only scenarion. Bigger wards, more population, and less ocuncilpeople who now do more in the way of ombundsmanship than they do as legislators. And this with no mention of the inadequacy of the city's direct service to people. How many times have we called directly and had no result? The councilperson has always been the person who made the wheel go round. Who will make the wheel go around when there are fewer to push.
Sorry, Roger, but I feel passionate about this issue. I think that all of the questions and answers so far don't address the real issues at play here.
I am wide awake. Just because we don't agree or have different takes on what is going on doesn't mean I'm asleep. I put my name to all my posts and stand by them based on what I know and what I believe. If I'm proven wrong, I'll be the first to admit it and eat all the crow necessary, I always have. If you're wrong, you're protected by the veil of anonymity and will suffer no such consequences. In my book that calls into question your motives for making such commentary as well as your credibility.
It's great that you know almost all of the councilmembers including Lipovan and Sweeney, except that if that were true you would know that Emily Lipovan is not a council member. I am not aware of any prior press allegations about sexual harassment she may have been involved with, but you plainly have your facts wrong in this case -- Emily did not go to the press in this case, other people did. Emily tried to protect her "boss" in this case as much as she could and to counsel him about his behavior and he refused to listen and instead attacked Emily. This is what I have been told and it has been confirmed to me by others. If you have specific contradicting information then I challenge you to produce it and to reveal your identity.
I may be wrong about these issues, I may be dead wrong. I hope I'm not. But I certainly don't think I'm being used. That doesn't even make sense. Used for what? What has any of my blog postings done but contribute to the public dialogue on this issue and give a forum for anonymous posters to have their say, too?
I don't know Marty Sweeney well enough to know for sure that any allegations about anything are true or not. All I said was that there were other possibilities to consider and that the headline in the PD was misleading.
I've said all along that this was a power play by other people on council and more about that than Emily Lipovan who isn't even on council. You seem to agree, yet somehow you still think I need to wake up that I am being used. This makes no sense.
I hope you will reveal yourself to me and tell me your story in private. No promises that I won't blog it though or reveal your identity.
CEP
There is more than one person leaving anonymous comments Roger. Picking on one of them for mistakenly referring to the clerk as a councilperson is not such a glaring mistake to undermine what is being said. And it is easy for you to put your name out there, because you don't work for a public agency and you have not been subjected to lie-machine that effectively grinds truth-seekers in our community to a pulp.
Roger, keep pointing out the discrepancies between what is written in the PD and what the facts are. They play too fast and loose with the truth. Theirs is more an artistically licensed impressionism than it is journalism.
It really reduces their value when we out here realize we have to have fact-checkers and content-analyzers, interpreters like you, to read something as simple as our daily newspaper. If you can't trust them, do you really need them?
See -- this is the problem with anonymous comments. I have no way of knowing if there is more than one of you, if you're the same person or any of that. Maybe you could agree to number yourselves so I can keep you straight.
For all I know, you could be Marty Sweeney or his relative, a jilted lover from Emily's past or a 17 year old kid gettin' his kicks. Now, I don't believe these things are true. But I have no way of knowing. If you have to post anonymously and I completely respect that you may have to, then you have to craft your comments carefully in a way that recognizes that your audience has no frame of reference in which to process your thoughts and ideas. Do you have a personal agenda? If so, what might it be? Do you have an ax to grind? If so, against who?
In recent comments to my posts regarding Emily Lipovan, one or more anonymous commenters (and I don't have any idea if they are the same person or not) have either implied or outright said the following about me:
I need to wake up.
I am being used.
I haven't been around long enough to understand what's really going on.
I am deluded.
I am quite certain that you can get your side of things out through anonymous comments to my blog without attacking me.
I also resent the implication that I have nothing to lose by blogging about these issues under my real identity. If the powers that be are as powerful and treacherous as you claim, then don't you think I am at risk by posting in the open? You don't think the lie machine can work against me just because I don't work for a public agency. For all I know, one or more of you could be PART of the lie machine.
I put my reputation and my credibility on the line everyday as a blogger. Please don't be offended if I take exception to people who impune my reputation and credibility from the protective cover of anonymity.
People who really care about the truth and that are genuinely concerned that I am being misled and used would pick up the phone and call me (I'm listed in all the books) and set me straight instead of taking pot shots from a position of anonymity and attacking other people through me.
Having said that, I am glad if you are a fellow truth seeker, and I am sorry if you took offense to a reply I made to a comment that you didn't post. Please understand that there is no possible way for me to distinguish between anonymous commenters.
I am also sorry if the statements in this comment are accidently directed at an anonymous commenter who doesn't deserve them. But unless you guys (or gals) come up with some way to distinguish yourselves without revealing your identity, I have no choice but to address you collectively and you'll have to figure out if my message applies to you or not.
CEP
Cuyahoga County records show E.L. married Neal McNea. I believe he's with the Housing Court.
Post a Comment