[Vision2020] The Daily News, or journalism in Moscow (was Questions for you legal eagles)

[Saundra Lund]

Hi Wayne, Keely, et al,

Did anyone see anything about Sitler's court review in today's Snooze?  I
didn't, but it's possible I missed it.  How about in the Trib (I don't
subscribe to it)?

You wrote:
"Yes, an good investigative reporter could shed some light on this . . . "

I don't know about the Trib, but to use "investigative reporter" (let alone
"good investigative reporter") and "Moscow-Pullman Daily News" in the same
sentence is an apparent oxymoron these days.  I remember way back when that
wasn't the case (I started subscribing back in 1988), but the Daily News has
become the Daily Snooze and has been floundering as a news source for quite
awhile, I'm sorry to say & IMHO.  I don't know what the problem is, but I
sure wish they'd get it figured out!  Keely made some excellent points in
her post, and since she's well versed in journalism, I'll defer to her.

Wayne, you wrote:
"When the local major newspapers trumpet the views of child molestation
enablers/fosterers/concealers but not of the victims, and when they fail to
warn the community of the insidious threat to their children, there is
something very wrong that only a through housecleaning would change."

Again, I don't know what the problem is, but there *is* a problem.  It is
absolutely unfathomable to me that *both* the Trib & the Snooze completely
dropped the ball on the Sitler case . . . and apparently continue to drop
the ball.

After all, we've read the incessant bloated whining time and again in those
very rags all about how Kirkers (including NSA students who maintain
membership in their home churches) are integrated "good neighbor" members of
this community.  Either that’s a pack of lies or this serial pedophile was a
risk to every child in our community, and the newspapers failed *miserably*
-- and continue to fail miserably -- in their duty to report the news.

Further, I'll remind folks of what I think is a salient fact:  the Kirker
community reportedly *was* warned about Sitler's predation *months and
months* before the rest of us.  And, they *didn't* share their knowledge of
the danger with the rest of us  :-(  Seemingly, they cared more about their
reputation than about the safety of *all* the children in our community --
that's not what I'd consider good neighbors.  Remember, this predator didn't
live a cloistered existence within our community between September 2003 and
March 2005 -- he was out & about without supervision because no one knew.
But, once his sexual victimization *did* become known, the Kirk kept it a
secret from the rest of us without regard for all the children in this
community.

That's bad enough, but this selfishness was compounded by our local
newspapers (and I use the term loosely) failing miserably to do what we
subscribers pay them to do:  report local (and other) news.

And, quite frankly, one has to wonder why?  If one looks at some of the
so-called "news" items that graced the pages of the Snooze from the time
Sitler's crimes became known until the rest of us found out, one has to
wonder if the Snooze has any clue whatsoever as to what "news" is?  I'm
interested in lots of things, but for me, safety issues trump everything
else, particularly safety as it relates to our children.  And, I know I'm
not alone:  I've not spoken to one single non-Kirker who doesn't agree that
our newspapers failed miserably on the Sitler case.

Certainly, from the time Doug Wilson first learned in March 2005 about
Sitler's serial sexual abuse of children in our community until the time the
rest of us learned about it in June 2006, Wilson was no shrinking violet
with the press.  His bloated whining -- and that of his cohorts -- appeared
frequently and loudly in the local press (doesn't that sound better than
calling them newspapers?) on a wide range of topics.  Yet he completely
failed to mention his dirty little secret, and because we don't have a
newspaper worth the ink & paper it takes to print it, the dirty little
secret that should have been front page safety news remained Wilson's & the
Kirk's private dirty little secret.

Indeed, during the time in question, the Snooze gave Doug Wilson his very
own guest column!  Did Wilson use that opportunity to sound the alarm?  Of
course not!  It was more important for him to spew rhetoric, twist
Christanity, call names, and attack the critics who don't share his
particular twist on Christianity or his worldview than to protect our
community's children.  It would be several more months before he even
sounded the alarm to the rank-and-file members of his own church.  And,
because the Snooze was, in fact, snoozing, Wilson was allowed to keep his
dirty little secret.

Now that the dirty little secret has seen the light of day, and in light of
what we now know about who knew what when -- and what *should* have been
reported by any local newspaper worth its salt -- I think some might find it
enlightening to see exactly what Wilson chose to write about -- and what the
Daily News published -- back in June, 2005, three months after Wilson knew
of Sitler's repeated victimization of children in our community.  For your
re-reading pleasure:

"Lambs and geese, foxes and wolves
Column, Doug Wilson
Saturday, June 18, 2005 - Page Updated at 12:00:00 AM

If I might, I would like to briefly respond to Rose Huskey and Saundra Lund,
who served up a veritable casserole of charges to your readers on Saturday
last (Opinion, June 11 & 12). This is hard to respond to in the space of
just 700 words because charges can always be raised with relative economy of
scale. "Scoundrel, liar and cheat" only takes four words, and it almost
always takes more than four words to answer once the mud-gobbing has begun.

Anyone who has followed the vituperation poured out on our church over the
last several years in places like Venom 2020 knows that this whole
controversy is not a simple matter of a couple of nice ladies trying to get
some "renegade church" to obey the law. Because of that, the headline of
that column is the main thing I would like to respond to "When the Fox
Preaches, Watch Out for the Geese."

When Jesus commissioned his disciples, he ordained them to something that
was almost the exact opposite of this. He said that he was sending his
preachers out as lambs among wolves (Luke 10:3). To use the metaphor of
Saturday's column, he was sending the goose to preach to the foxes.

Why would the Lord use this kind of image? What is the nature of lambs? What
is the nature of wolves? One of the most obvious differences is that lambs
are in no position to try to coerce anyone to do anything. Still less are
they in a position to compel wolves to do anything. But wolves do not think
the same way. They have no scruples about imposing their view of the world,
or their view of lunch, on the lambs.

Everything that Huskey and Lund point to as examples of our ecclesiastical
misdeeds are actually examples of voluntary transactions, freely entered
into. From enrollment in New Saint Andrews College, to boarding
arrangements, to attendance at Christ Church, what we have is a group of
peaceful, law-abiding people, working hard to mind their own businesses,
love their own families, and improve their community. Attempted harassment
through governmental or "legal" channels has been the order of the day (nine
such attempts so far). These attacks come from individuals with a private
set of personal or ideological grudges and too much time on their hands. I
am not counting the petty vandalisms in the private sector and other
periodic manifestations of spite. Further, in the eyes of our accusers, to
point any of this out is to be guilty of "whining," which is hopefully not
the evaluation they would offer if we were black or Jewish and getting the
same treatment. The Intoleristas have certainly lived up to their nickname.

This illustrates the difference between freedom and coercion. The reason
believing Christians love freedom the way we do is because God has promised
us that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17).
We are not interested in trying to force those who differ with us to do
anything. They, on the other hand, are not shy at all about the free and
liberal use of coercion. In saying this, I am not talking about laws we all
must live by. This whole controversy has been driven, first, by
misunderstanding the law, and second, highly selective and discriminatory
applications of those misunderstandings to our ministries alone.

The confusion on this is so pronounced that it cannot be accounted for by
appealing to mere political differences. There are only two fundamental ways
to walk in the world -- the way the Lord showed us or our own autonomous
way, the way of unbelief. Genuine faith in God the Father through Jesus
Christ always leads us into the law of liberty. Rejection of God's
sovereignty, and of his kindness to us through the death of Jesus Christ,
leads necessarily into patterns of coercive attempts to run the lives of
others. And if those others dare to differ, then the attempts are ramped up
to run the dissenters out of town. What else could "Not In Our Town" mean?
But the Lord Jesus died on the cross, was buried, and rose again from the
dead on the third day in order to demonstrate that the way of the Lamb
triumphs over the way of the wolves.

Doug Wilson is the pastor of Christ Church in Moscow."

Indeed!

How very desperate Wilson must have been to keep his dirty little secret at
the cost of the safety of our community's children.  His unchristian attacks
on those who chose to challenge him during that time make a lot more sense
now, don't they?  And, how very desperate he must remain that we all forget
about Sitler . . . and about Wight, one of the Kirk's then-Golden Young Men.

How very desperate the Moscow-Pullman Daily News must be for us all to
forget that it missed -- or perhaps buried -- the story all the while giving
Wilson plenty of ink on anything else his heart desired.

And, how very desperate the Daily News must be for us all not notice that it
continues to miss -- or bury -- the story.

A more skeptical yet still reasonable person might question whether the
Daily News has reason to continue to miss -- or bury -- the story?  It
certainly would be beneath contempt for the Snooze to turn a blind eye
simply to protect its income from those parking space it rents to Wilson's
New St. Andrews . . . 

Oh, and as long as I'm cc'ing Nathan Alford on this, I'll add that I didn't
appreciate the spate of blank emails (a dozen or so in all) your newspaper
sent to my email address on Thursday!  Geez -- what was that about?!?!  I
responded to the first asking what was up, and I'm *still* waiting for an
answer.  As they continued and continued and continued to fill my inbox, I
tried calling as well.  Of course, no one was available to answer my
questions or make it stop.  


Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
- Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****


-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Art Deco
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Questions for you legal eagles

Keely, et al,
 
During the time when this debauchery of justice was more active, the only
press coverage by those wonderful community newspapers, the Daily News and
the Lewiston Morning Tribune was only one significant article.
 
That article was a spoon-fed, whine-baby complaint from Cultmaster Douglas
Wilson and No Saints Around Headmaster Roy Atwood.  The article told of the
alleged great woes that the publicity from Steven Sitler's and Jamin Wight's
actions were causing the cult and NSA.
 
Yes, an good investigative reporter could shed some light on this case
especially with material that could be supplied to the reporter.  Not only
would the more creepy aspects of the principals' actions be brought to light
and serve as a warning/wake-up call to the community, but other aspects of
these matters including obstruction of justice and the failure of all parts
of the local criminal justice system to handle this matter correctly and
with appropriate justice would be exposed.
 
That these wonderful, community minded newspapers failed to report on these
sexual abuse/exploitation cases from the beginning, but only reported upon
the alleged sufferings of the principal enablers/fosterers/concealers, but
not upon the sufferings of the many victims, should answer your implied
questions.  It is doubtful that the local newspapers have the interest,
inclination, and courage to run a series on child/neglect as the
Spokesman-Review has just done.  Quite the opposite is most likely the case.

 
When the local major newspapers trumpet the views of child molestation
enablers/fosterers/concealers but not of the victims, and when they fail to
warn the community of the insidious threat to their children, there is
something very wrong that only a through housecleaning would change.
Unfortunately at this time, brooms, mops, carbolic acid, and journalistic
ethics are not available at either the Daily News or the Lewiston Morning
Tribune.
 

Wayne A. Fox
1009 Karen Lane
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID  83843
 
(208) 882-7975
waf at moscow.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: keely emerinemix <mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com>  
To: Glenn Schwaller <mailto:vpschwaller at gmail.com>  ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Questions for you legal eagles

Referring to Mr. Schwaller's Point #5 --

Yes, that is sad.  Perhaps even inexcusable.  The answers to these and many
other questions strike me as the sort of thing that ought to be covered by
your local daily newspaper.  Maybe we'll see the answers in tomorrow's
story. 

Anyone?  Anyone?  

keely




________________________________

	Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 11:51:34 -0700
	From: vpschwaller at gmail.com
	To: vision2020 at moscow.com
	Subject: [Vision2020] Questions for you legal eagles
	
	1.  I suspect one will find out if the No Contact Order will be in
effect at today's hearing.  Again, this will fall under P&P's jurisdiction
as well.
	
	2.  I'm not sure if there will be "national publicity" on this case
one way or the other.  Seems like there is enough of a problem getting the
MPD News to pick up anything of importance going on in the community . . . 
	
	3.  I'm sure if the court was not aware of the "trophy website"
then, they are now.  A good point on why they or law enforcement was not
aware of it at the time.  Seems like unless the MPD or LCSD is handed the
weapon in a murder, they can't seem to find it so I suspect the web site was
unknown to them. 
	
	4.  I guess one would have to make inquiries to the Prosecuting
Attorney's office and/or the court to find out what was going on in the plea
bargain.
	
	5.  All very good questions - sort of sad we don't have a good
investigative reporter in the region that could answer these and other
questions in a neutral manner. 
	
	Schwaller