FBCStaff-Liberals do love to make over the top accusations to draw attention to themselves. I recently noted a recent column on the FBISD bond was a good, a fair, and an informed piece followed by this outlandish comment a local wannabe politician made about it:
“Kris Allfrey So Michael how much advertising are we going to see in the next paper for FBISD? I hope you got a lot like Community Impact because I know the district has nothing better to do with our tax dollars. Glad to see the vendor feeders have mobilized.”
Allfrey responded with this comment:
“As my grandmother use to tell me the proof is in the pudding! Don’t believe that local print media can be bought off with tax payer dollars? Remember all those articles in the Community Impact newspaper that also so featured a significant advertising contribution from FBISD? Remember that “editorial piece” in the Fort Bend Star along with all the advertising from FBISD using tax payer dollars? Well now I will encourage you to read the Fort Bend Independent. You see they haven’t got a windfall of tax payer dollars like the Ford Bend Star and Community Impact have from FBISD. They chose to do the ethical thing and write a story that outlines all issues with the bond both good and bad. Still think your local media is not for sale? FBISD surely attempted and succeeded in buying off two of them. Will they now try to buy off the Fort Bend Independent after they read this post? Time will tell!”
followed by these comments from the author and others:
“Nancy Dunham Wow, Kris Allfrey, I thought this was the editor and newspaper that you said had zero credibility just a few months ago?
Kris Allfrey I can only guess he is upset that he did not get bought off!
Nancy Dunham I wonder how many people on here believe Michael Sudhalter wrote his column because the Star was paid off? That’s a pretty serious accusation and I, for one, believe he was sincere in his editorial. I think he has made a huge improvement in the Star since he arrived and I view the Star as a much more balanced and newsworthy paper since he joined the Star and since he has worked to engage the community on this site.
J.R. Atkins I share Nancy’s views on this one. I think it is more believable that someone has a viewpoint after research that leans towards a “Yes” vote than it is for the paper to be paid for a good review. I also seem to remember at least one article that explained the “No” vote stance.
I’m also looking forward to the letters to the editor that respond to the article. Tammy has a compelling argument that is direct and does not claim wrong doing by the powers that be. If I was against the bond I would probably feel that way because of her thoughts. It sells better in my opinion.
Michael Sudhalter Kris Allfrey you’re totally off base with this one. I remember that FBISD went with a lower bid to post some legal ads in a recent edition. If anything, by your logic, I would have been inclined to write something negative. The truth is we’ve taken an extremely balanced approach over the past few months in presenting the issues, including substantial input from yourself and other members of “FBISD Concerns”. The most recent article was a Commentary, not a regular news article, in which I gathered from months of researching the bond, listening to concerns and yes, listening to the district’s response as well. As the Editor of a newspaper, I write a weekly commentary piece. You can agree with it or not, but to claim some ulterior motive without proof isn’t right.
Kris Allfrey I put the facts out as they exist, sorry that it does paint a very ugly picture. Voters are free to make up their own minds.
Nancy Dunham Kris Allfrey you can prove that the Star printed a positive bond article due to receiving advertising? If you can, I would certainly like to see
Kris Allfrey So sorry you disagree Nancy but that is your god given right. I put the facts as their appear, I made no statement of illegal activity. All three papers are free to accept advertising from whoever they want. They are also free to write any story they want. Readers are also allowed to draw their own conclusion based on those facts. Again sorry you disagree.
What facts? These are simply dumb unfounded allegations. Michael is right, to make a dumb unfounded allegation without a smidgen of proof isn’t right but it is a tactic that Allfrey frequently uses. Why? The general consensus of psychologists that assert emotional intelligence is more important than IQ, is a lack of impulse control. Some psychologists have suggested unfounded attacks are a cry for help based on a deep-seated anger, some good old boys would say “that boy has a screw loose,” and my grandmother would say “bless his heart.”
I’m thinking there’s some merit there. I could do a poll or you can certainly weigh with your comments as many do here. Or we can chuckle at Allfrey’s expense, shake our heads and wonder what “the nut” will say next. After all we do have free speech and he is entitled to make an azz of himself anytime he chooses.