A Word About my Agendas

Frequent commenter Mainstream commented here yesterday with a complex analysis of the agendas and intrigue behind the David Martin/Beth Gottstein flap I wrote about yesterday. It was an impressive and partially accurate assessment of who supports whom and how an article in the Pitch about one subject is really a result of a different subject and how my criticism of the Pitch really means that I'm supporting Funk (yet again) because Funk opposed . . . At about this time, I had to stop reading because it gave me a headache.

Here's the truth, just so it is out there on the table. I like and support Funkhouser, which means that I criticize his decisions when I think they're wrong, but I object to criticism of him when he's not wrong. I like and support Beth Gottstein. Here's a shock - I like and support Jason Kander, too. I like a few politicians, I don't like a few politicians (as politicians, that is - I have no deeper feeling about them), and I'm on the fence about all of them.

I can assure you that I am in on no hidden conspiracies or media manipulation machines. (If I were, though, I suppose I'd probably deny it, but I think those who know me know that I'm contrarian enough to not go along with something like that.)

Here's the way all that plays out on this blog. I read the paper and blogs, and I see something negative on Funkhouser. 95% of the time, by the time I post about it, it has been sliced, diced, and processed by someone who has an strongly anti-Funkhouser bias, such as Tony's Kansas City or the KC Blue Blog. I'm trying to be fair here, but it's not unheard of that somebody will go far afield in writing about whatever the issue is, by exaggerating its impact, by screwing up the facts, or by just being outright mean and nasty. So my piece will usually be a response to one of those reactions, and we're off to the races, with the anti-Funk people thinking that I'm arguing that he's perfect, or that I'm transcribing copy straight from his press office.

Some confusion arises out of story selection. I don't write about every local story - only what catches my eye and seems worthy of comment. So, if someone writes something unfair about someone I don't admire - let's use Matt Blunt as an example - it probably won't catch my eye. Sometimes it does, and I will voice my opinion that criticism is over the line or whatever, but the truth is that I don't read it as critically. If someone writes something negative about someone I like, I do read it a lot more critically, and I might find something to write about. If David Martin has done his unsourced hatchet job on someone I don't like, I probably would not have noticed it.

Sadly, that's about all there is to the story of my agendas. I will criticize and have criticized Funk when I think he's wrong. Even if he's wrong, though, I will criticize and have criticized those who go crazy in their attacks. There's no chess game going on here - I'm just writing about what catches my eye. If I write a piece slamming or defending anyone or anything, it does not mean that Funk or Gottstein or Kander or anyone else agrees, or wants that opinion published. And even I reserve the right to change my mind. So, please, don't waste your time on venn diagrams and heavy analysis.