Brett Reese -
The following email between Brett Reese, popular elected public official, and Randi Bangert, editor of the Greeley Tribune shows the inside communications and “agenda” of what a few in our community still believe is an objective news source. The following is a recent, complete thread of email correspondence between myself and Mr. Bangert showing in detail, Mr. Bangert’s disinterest in presenting both sides of school board issues fairly. Mr. Bangert endorsed every other of 4 candidates for the school board except Reese, who was popularly elected anyway. Oldest responses are at the bottom.
The answer is still no and that is my final response on this matter.
On 2/21/11 4:58 AM, “Reese” <email@example.com> wrote:
Let’s break down your objections.
I have had other columns published a couple years ago that actually did contain misspellings and grammatical errors. As you explained to me outside the Chamber in our last visit, you reserve the right to (heavily) edit my columns. It intrigues me, then, to find you now require my columns to be without error whatever. Especially given that you have printed, in the last week, my board colleague’s commentary complete with the word “b_ _ _ _ “.
Your favorite word is “rant”. Fortunately most readers in Greeley have already read this piece on this site. And what you lable rants can be seen clearly in other media to be “stories not covered by the Lib Trib”….i.e. The opinion piece I submitted to you doesn’t expose you to libel any more than your idiotic continual insults about me libel you. Check a good media attorney to find the definition of libel Randy. Libel requires standards far above what I have written here. Oh, and it must be false, which it isn’t. My “factual basis” was also spelled out as plainly and simply as anyone could. The fact Lang’s contract was NOT on the agenda before it was approved makes it illegal.
Mr. Bangert, please try to see the obvious. Though you state I called the superintendent a “criminal”, I didn’t.
A fairly good example of true libel is what the Lib Trib writes about me in almost every breath on your opinion page. Double standard to say the least…but it fits with your censorship justified by any straw you can grab.
Speaking of factual errors, I am glad to see you admit you did, in fact, reject my previous column of a month ago. Funny how it could have “completely slipped your mind” -I think I was on your front page every day for a week. There’s the second factual error in your one letter alone! I never called Lang a criminal and you admit you neglected/refused to print my last column.
I’m sure you and I DO live in different universes!
You have/are once again substantiating the community-wide suspicion that you print stories and opinions based on agenda-driven content. And the evidence of this fact? You refuse to cover the conservative angles, leaving that niche wide open for The Gazette. And the facts are in the numbers. Yesterday, www.greeleygazette.com <http://www.greeleygazette.com> received over 5,000 unique hits (one day). Almost entirely local. Thanks for leaving The Gazette room in this market! BTW, KFKA’s numbers, just fyi, show 1100 listeners in Greeley. Fact.
If you refuse to edit my work, would you mind very much explaining to me exactly which parts need editing and why, for my re-submittal? Please pass this on to the non-local folks who own your paper. They should be aware of your utterly unjustified refusal to print an elected official’s column describing the obvious illegality in extending our superintendent’s contract.
—– Original Message —–
From: Randy Bangert <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Reese <mailto:email@example.com>
Cc: Theresa Myers <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> ; Sherrie Peif <mailto:email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Reese column
Brett— My apologies. A colleague has corrected me and pointed out that you had submitted something for possible publication a few weeks ago, during the MLK controversy. It had completely slipped my mind.
On 2/20/11 10:23 AM, “Randy Bangert” <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Brett — Thanks for submitting a piece for consideration. And thanks for your compliment about our honesty, which leads me to my first point: I have never said I would “definitely print” anybody’s columns without first reviewing them to make sure they meet our standards. And I have never received a previous submission from you to consider for publication. Ever. In the context of being completely honest, I thought I should clarify those points.
The standards issue I mention above leads me to my second point. This piece contains misspellings, factual errors, personal attacks, name-calling and libelous accusations — to name just a few issues that are violations of our requirements for publication. And did you really think we’d publish a piece that accuses the superintendent of being a criminal, of doing something illegal, without any factual basis to back it up? I guess it’s safe to say that you live in a universe that is considerably different than mine, but I think it’s important for me to say that we won’t be lowering our standards just to avoid criticism by a public official for not publishing a libelous rant.