I wrote in part “In relation to the question as to whether the reporter interviewed the engineers and planners who left the employ of the city, there are two possibilities namely (a) she did interview them or (b) she did not interview them. Additionally, they either (a) spoke to her and provided information or (b) they declined to discuss the matter. Whatever, the permutations and combinations of the above, it is an established journalistic practice to inform the reader as to the actual situation. In this case, this was never done and represents a defect in the quality of the reporting on this topic.”
Editors note EDIT: - There is a third option you have not considered, that being the reporter chose not to ask the question at all as it was considered no one's business but the parties who departed. - HH
If she chose not to ask the question at all, then it seems she should hardly be writing an opinion piece which suggests that there is nothing unusual about the number of engineers and planners who have left the department since Prefontaine became the department head. After all, that is the question on everyone’s mind is “did these experience key personnel leave because of dissatisfaction with Prefontaine’s appointment. If you chose not to ask …. then you are hardly qualified to write an opinion piece suggesting otherwise.
EDIT:- This is flat out wrong. The interview referred to was with Prefontaine and not MacKay. Read the story again and it is very obvious. - HH
Well here is the quote from the paper. “People weren’t satisfied with the leadership they’re receiving in the department. I think that’s quite obvious.” MacKay said. He said he’s never seen turnover this high in the planning and engineering department. The interview was given prior to the release of the statistics.” [emphasis added]
So I think it is reasonably clear that: (1) the interview that she is talking about is the interview with MacKay. Secondly, the implication of adding the sentence which I have underlined is to suggest that MacKay’s conclusions that “he’s never seen turnover this high” is inaccurate as established by the Prefontaine annual turnover statistics which Prefontaine published after the interview with MacKay.
So, I’m not “flat out wrong” as the interview she is talking about is obviously the interview with MacKay. Read the story again and it is very obvious. Theskeptic.