I have no idea who Waverly Ann Moore in her piece Opposing sides work to clear confusion over pier ballot language was trying to appease but she either didn't write the Headline or didn't read it.
Here are the opening few lines :
ST. PETERSBURG — It would appear that voters have two clear choices in the upcoming referendum about the Lens, the replacement pier being proposed for the city's prized waterfront:
*No, we don't want the $50 million Lens.
*Yes, go ahead.
Now either Ms. Moore has never read the actual ballot language or this is a piece specifically designed to do the opposite of the what the Headline says.
I'll spare you all the bird cage analogies I often use to describe the Tampa Bay Times, but this is absolutely unconscionable.
The implication is Vote NO if you want to stop the lens.
You VOTE YES to STOP The LENS.
For a Newspaper who trumpets their stellar past and civic responsibility, wraps themselves in the cloak of the Poynter legacy this is just plain hypocrisy.
Poynter never shied away from his own views, but I don't think he would have allowed this type of deception.
Paul Tash needs to pull this story, print a retraction and apologize to the citizens of St. Petersburg and his readers. This is the lowest form of journalism.
If you want to build the LENS stake out that position and defend it, but don't try to get your way by deception.
As for Ms. Moore, get a copy of the Ballot language and read it. If I had to write trash like that to keep a job, I go work for McDonalds.
e-mail Doc at: email@example.com, or send me a Facebook Friend request.
Campaign Disclosures: Contributor to Kathleen Ford Campaign, Darden Rice Campaign, Concern Citizens of St. Petersburg
Have your say. VOTE YES TO Stop The Lens.