Gazette is dead

Taylor_J wrote:

<quoted text>
Your compulsion to continue to make false and defamatory accusations is getting obsessive. At some point, the authorities will come and arrest you for domestic terrorism. That is what you are -- a terrorist. One who instills fear in others, taunting and making threats against the local business community.

What business would want their brand associated with a newspaper that allows a convicted child molester to write columns and engage in negative politics against the local public school district?

Trevor wrote:

<quoted text>
Any rumor about where W will be spreading his lies from? I couldn't imagine that a real newspaper would want to hire him. He could never work for a newspaper that checked their facts and he'll never give up his editor rights.

Yes! We adore "rumors".!
We local poor undereducated bumpkins believe Everything we read Everywhere so if our new "local" news sources print whatever they are offered as "press releases" and don't have a dedicated source willing to do the thankless and time consuming and fiscally unrewarding research needed to write any original story or opinion article, and to do ANY original research, we are only toooo willing to rely on whatever "press releases" are offered for "free".

Hoozah!Thank goodness for our stupid, uninformed, unwilling to go to the polls for truly worthwhile candidates citizens!

"Trevor" you are a true American hero- or Heroine as only you know for sure!

TuesAtFiveFan wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes! We adore "rumors".!
We local poor undereducated bumpkins believe Everything we read Everywhere so if our new "local" news sources print whatever they are offered as "press releases" and don't have a dedicated source willing to do the thankless and time consuming and fiscally unrewarding research needed to write any original story or opinion article, and to do ANY original research, we are only toooo willing to rely on whatever "press releases" are offered for "free".
Hoozah!Thank goodness for our stupid, uninformed, unwilling to go to the polls for truly worthwhile candidates citizens!
"Trevor" you are a true American hero- or Heroine as only you know for sure!

Looks like the Rittersville residents are out and about again.

Taylor_J wrote:

<quoted text>
Your compulsion to continue to make false and defamatory accusations is getting obsessive. At some point, the authorities will come and arrest you for domestic terrorism. That is what you are -- a terrorist. One who instills fear in others, taunting and making threats against the local business community.

That's Woldow's job , oh and by the way he's a child molester too!

TuesAtFiveFan wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes! We adore "rumors".!
We local poor undereducated bumpkins believe Everything we read Everywhere so if our new "local" news sources print whatever they are offered as "press releases" and don't have a dedicated source willing to do the thankless and time consuming and fiscally unrewarding research needed to write any original story or opinion article, and to do ANY original research, we are only toooo willing to rely on whatever "press releases" are offered for "free".
Hoozah!Thank goodness for our stupid, uninformed, unwilling to go to the polls for truly worthwhile candidates citizens!
"Trevor" you are a true American hero- or Heroine as only you know for sure!

Any ethical editor worth his salt refuses to go back to or accept a press release from a source with a history of purposefully misleading or putting forth false information.

Again, that is the issue here. No matter how many times his sources are/were proven wrong or inaccurate, he continue(d/s) to write from their false information because he is actively working with them on their far right and anti-public education agenda.

You hit the nail on the head- he is unwilling to utilize ethics ("fiscally unrewarding research") because it would reveal information that does not meet his self-serving goals.

The QCSD vs. Gazette article
Sunday, July 5, 2009 11:55 AM
From: Randy Kraft
To: mbarry.t21
Andrejko, Lisa
Richard Woldow
Linda A. MArtin
Stein, Erica
Paul Stepanoff
Manuel Alfonso
Kathy Mosley
I want all key parties to know this at the same time.
I object to this sentence being inserted into the fifth paragraph of my article about the QCSD superintendent and The Gazette: "And the discussion dominated the meeting, whose routine business was trumped by anger and hostility toward the newspaper."
I did not write that sentence. It was inserted into an article bearing my name without my knowledge or consent. As anyone who attended that school board meeting knows, the statement is entirely untrue. The discussion most certainly did NOT dominate the school board meeting.(And I'm not even going to get into the fact that it was poorly written: since when is a meeting a "who"???)
I also object to Richard Woldow's name being removed from the sixth paragraph of my article. This is what I wrote: "Alfonso told the board he had received a complaint from Richard Woldow, opinion columnist at The Gazette, that the district’s administration refused to provide the following information to the paper: high school graduation photos, honor roll lists and contacts for sports coaches."
If a formal complaint had come from owner Mark Barry to the entire school board, a significantly different conversation might have taken place at that board meeting. But the fact that the complaint came from Mr. Woldow -- and that was mentioned at the very start of the discussion -- inflamed the situation and heavily influenced everything that happened next. His name should not have been moved down to the second half of the article. It belonged where I put it. Burying it diminished the balance and accuracy of my reporting.

This sentence is absolutely untrue and I did not write it: "Mosley claimed the request for information did not come from management of The Gazette, but from opinion columnist Richard Woldow." I already stated the complaint came from Woldow at the top of the article, but that was removed. Again, everyone attending the board meeting heard Mr. Alfonso say it came from Richard Woldow. There would have been absolutely no need for Ms. Mosley to "claim" it came from him.

This is what I wrote in that spot: "Mosley said the request for information did not come from management of The Gazette, but from an opinion columnist. Alfonso said Woldow was passing on a complaint from The Gazette’s management."

The headline is inaccurate: Andrejko issued no edict to keep student achievements out of the newspaper.

The front page head is an editorial headline, not a news headline: Student achievements banned from newspaper.(Exhibit A: The graduation article I wrote, which has not yet run, lists names of all seniors who graduated with top honors, right out of the commencement program. No one banned me from using those names in the newspaper.)

For the record, I did not write the paragraph the begins: "A review of the archives...." I have no problem with that, if someone did indeed review the archives. But I did not do it and I was not informed that such a review had been conducted.

As a journalist, I walk a tightrope every time I write an article. I do my very best to be accurate, honest and fair to all sides. Never is that tightrope more more slippery than when I am writing about my own employer. I commended, and commend, Mr. Barry for showing journalistic integrity by running the article critical of his newspaper and its columnist.

But after it was out of my hands, changes were made that were just wrong.

When I e-mailed the completed article to Mr. Barry, I included the following:

"I request that you do not show this article to Richard before publication. That would be absolutely unfair, because we're not showing it to any of the others quoted in the article.(I never do that....although I will read back a sentence or three.... for fact-checking/accuracy purposes only.) I already pretty much told Richard what part of his comments I will be using.

"I do have my objectivity to protect. And, because Richard said he will be writing about this in his column, I don't want it to look like collusion. I keep telling people who are skeptical that he does not control what I write or how I write it, nor does he edit what I write.

"I also would not want stuff drawn out of my article and put into his column.

"It would be even more unfair if he would be permitted to make any unilateral changes to the article.

"I'm NOT suggesting you will share it with him, or that he would make any changes if you did.

" If YOU feel any changes have to be made, I'd (always) like to be the one to make them."

For the record, while I have not studied it word-for-word, most of the article appears to be as I wrote it. I can't publicly undo what has been done, under my byline. But I do want the facts to be known because I have my own personal and professional reputation to protect.

I request that this does not happen again.

Randy Kraft

Well, well, well. It looks like I was right all along. Dick Dildow has FULL control of the paper he says he doesn't own....

Now he's resorted to manipulating an honest reporter's work to agree with his lies.

You molester lovers are going to go down with him.

THIS IS JUST SICK.

Woldow has really sunk to new lows now. He knows the paper is collapsing around him, so he'll alter any article to fit his sick, twisted agenda.

truth_comes_out wrote:

This sentence is absolutely untrue and I did not write it: "Mosley claimed the request for information did not come from management of The Gazette, but from opinion columnist Richard Woldow." I already stated the complaint came from Woldow at the top of the article, but that was removed. Again, everyone attending the board meeting heard Mr. Alfonso say it came from Richard Woldow. There would have been absolutely no need for Ms. Mosley to "claim" it came from him.
This is what I wrote in that spot: "Mosley said the request for information did not come from management of The Gazette, but from an opinion columnist. Alfonso said Woldow was passing on a complaint from The Gazette’s management."
The headline is inaccurate: Andrejko issued no edict to keep student achievements out of the newspaper.
The front page head is an editorial headline, not a news headline: Student achievements banned from newspaper.(Exhibit A: The graduation article I wrote, which has not yet run, lists names of all seniors who graduated with top honors, right out of the commencement program. No one banned me from using those names in the newspaper.)
For the record, I did not write the paragraph the begins: "A review of the archives...." I have no problem with that, if someone did indeed review the archives. But I did not do it and I was not informed that such a review had been conducted.
As a journalist, I walk a tightrope every time I write an article. I do my very best to be accurate, honest and fair to all sides. Never is that tightrope more more slippery than when I am writing about my own employer. I commended, and commend, Mr. Barry for showing journalistic integrity by running the article critical of his newspaper and its columnist.
But after it was out of my hands, changes were made that were just wrong.
When I e-mailed the completed article to Mr. Barry, I included the following:
"I request that you do not show this article to Richard before publication. That would be absolutely unfair, because we're not showing it to any of the others quoted in the article.(I never do that....although I will read back a sentence or three.... for fact-checking/accuracy purposes only.) I already pretty much told Richard what part of his comments I will be using.
"I do have my objectivity to protect. And, because Richard said he will be writing about this in his column, I don't want it to look like collusion. I keep telling people who are skeptical that he does not control what I write or how I write it, nor does he edit what I write.
"I also would not want stuff drawn out of my article and put into his column.
"It would be even more unfair if he would be permitted to make any unilateral changes to the article.
"I'm NOT suggesting you will share it with him, or that he would make any changes if you did.
" If YOU feel any changes have to be made, I'd (always) like to be the one to make them."
For the record, while I have not studied it word-for-word, most of the article appears to be as I wrote it. I can't publicly undo what has been done, under my byline. But I do want the facts to be known because I have my own personal and professional reputation to protect.
I request that this does not happen again.
Randy Kraft

Dude - you write for a local rag that has a child molestor as editor and publisher all rolled into one. What did you expect. If you want to be respected again - QUIT! Immediately, otherwise, you are just anpther child-molestor supporting writer for a really crappy paper. Get some self-respect and write elsewhere. YOU are responsible for the articles you write, even if they are edited after you have submitted them.

Will wrote:

Woldow has really sunk to new lows now. He knows the paper is collapsing around him, so he'll alter any article to fit his sick, twisted agenda.

Maybe, if woldow loses the paper and his outlet, we can get the Murphy's to stop using TOPIX and everyone would be happy.

Fred wrote:

<quoted text>
Dude - you write for a local rag that has a child molestor as editor and publisher all rolled into one. What did you expect. If you want to be respected again - QUIT! Immediately, otherwise, you are just anpther child-molestor supporting writer for a really crappy paper. Get some self-respect and write elsewhere. YOU are responsible for the articles you write, even if they are edited after you have submitted them.

Give the guy some credit. If he's an outsider to this area, he may not be aware of Woldow's sordid past, and if he was; you know how Dicky can sweet-talk to people and use his Svengali-esque skills to win people over.

I think this guy's seen the light. Hopefully, he'll find a reputable paper to work for.

By the way, I don't think he was the one who posted this. Jobs are hard to come by these days.

Kinda Funny wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe, if woldow loses the paper and his outlet, we can get the Murphy's to stop using TOPIX and everyone would be happy.

If Woldow loses the paper, what will you poor Orloffians do? Boo-hoo! The molester won't have your backs any longer and that dipwad Orloff won't have anyone to hold his hand through an election!

Bye, bye Woldow! Good riddance!

RichlandMom wrote:

The sob story of an editor says the final issue of The Gazette will be coming out July 29. I told her that was great news and that her paper wouldn't be missed by anyone.
Quakertown is much better served by papers of substance, like Town and Country, which has been beefing up its presence in the area.
Businesses should call TAC for their advertising needs. Ask for Carl France, advertising director.

Is that you, Carl? Have you had to resort to masquerading as a "Richland Mom" to sell ads, now? If it's not you, why are you trying to help Carl, whoever you are? He's a big boy, after all. He should be able to sell his own advertising by now (Lord knows he's getting plenty of help thanks to the Woldow-ized Gazette). FYI, last time I checked, endorsements from anonymous sources don't carry too much weight.

truth_comes_out wrote:

This sentence is absolutely untrue and I did not write it: "Mosley claimed the request for information did not come from management of The Gazette, but from opinion columnist Richard Woldow." I already stated the complaint came from Woldow at the top of the article, but that was removed. Again, everyone attending the board meeting heard Mr. Alfonso say it came from Richard Woldow. There would have been absolutely no need for Ms. Mosley to "claim" it came from him.
This is what I wrote in that spot: "Mosley said the request for information did not come from management of The Gazette, but from an opinion columnist. Alfonso said Woldow was passing on a complaint from The Gazette’s management."
The headline is inaccurate: Andrejko issued no edict to keep student achievements out of the newspaper.
The front page head is an editorial headline, not a news headline: Student achievements banned from newspaper.(Exhibit A: The graduation article I wrote, which has not yet run, lists names of all seniors who graduated with top honors, right out of the commencement program. No one banned me from using those names in the newspaper.)
For the record, I did not write the paragraph the begins: "A review of the archives...." I have no problem with that, if someone did indeed review the archives. But I did not do it and I was not informed that such a review had been conducted.
As a journalist, I walk a tightrope every time I write an article. I do my very best to be accurate, honest and fair to all sides. Never is that tightrope more more slippery than when I am writing about my own employer. I commended, and commend, Mr. Barry for showing journalistic integrity by running the article critical of his newspaper and its columnist.
But after it was out of my hands, changes were made that were just wrong.
When I e-mailed the completed article to Mr. Barry, I included the following:
"I request that you do not show this article to Richard before publication. That would be absolutely unfair, because we're not showing it to any of the others quoted in the article.(I never do that....although I will read back a sentence or three.... for fact-checking/accuracy purposes only.) I already pretty much told Richard what part of his comments I will be using.
"I do have my objectivity to protect. And, because Richard said he will be writing about this in his column, I don't want it to look like collusion. I keep telling people who are skeptical that he does not control what I write or how I write it, nor does he edit what I write.
"I also would not want stuff drawn out of my article and put into his column.
"It would be even more unfair if he would be permitted to make any unilateral changes to the article.
"I'm NOT suggesting you will share it with him, or that he would make any changes if you did.
" If YOU feel any changes have to be made, I'd (always) like to be the one to make them."
For the record, while I have not studied it word-for-word, most of the article appears to be as I wrote it. I can't publicly undo what has been done, under my byline. But I do want the facts to be known because I have my own personal and professional reputation to protect.
I request that this does not happen again.
Randy Kraft

I feel bad for you, because this is not the manner in which professional journalists should be treated. But take a moment and stop to think about who it is you're working for, if you're even sure about who your REAL boss is... If you can't honestly trust these people, is it worth writing for them? A reputation is so easily ruined, and the Barrys and Woldows of the world could care less about yours, mine and everyone else's. They have their own agendas, and they use others as pawns to achieve their goals.

truth_comes_out wrote:

This sentence is absolutely untrue and I did not write it: "Mosley claimed the request for information did not come from management of The Gazette, but from opinion columnist Richard Woldow." I already stated the complaint came from Woldow at the top of the article, but that was removed. Again, everyone attending the board meeting heard Mr. Alfonso say it came from Richard Woldow. There would have been absolutely no need for Ms. Mosley to "claim" it came from him.
This is what I wrote in that spot: "Mosley said the request for information did not come from management of The Gazette, but from an opinion columnist. Alfonso said Woldow was passing on a complaint from The Gazette’s management."
The headline is inaccurate: Andrejko issued no edict to keep student achievements out of the newspaper.
The front page head is an editorial headline, not a news headline: Student achievements banned from newspaper.(Exhibit A: The graduation article I wrote, which has not yet run, lists names of all seniors who graduated with top honors, right out of the commencement program. No one banned me from using those names in the newspaper.)
For the record, I did not write the paragraph the begins: "A review of the archives...." I have no problem with that, if someone did indeed review the archives. But I did not do it and I was not informed that such a review had been conducted.
As a journalist, I walk a tightrope every time I write an article. I do my very best to be accurate, honest and fair to all sides. Never is that tightrope more more slippery than when I am writing about my own employer. I commended, and commend, Mr. Barry for showing journalistic integrity by running the article critical of his newspaper and its columnist.
But after it was out of my hands, changes were made that were just wrong.
When I e-mailed the completed article to Mr. Barry, I included the following:
"I request that you do not show this article to Richard before publication. That would be absolutely unfair, because we're not showing it to any of the others quoted in the article.(I never do that....although I will read back a sentence or three.... for fact-checking/accuracy purposes only.) I already pretty much told Richard what part of his comments I will be using.
"I do have my objectivity to protect. And, because Richard said he will be writing about this in his column, I don't want it to look like collusion. I keep telling people who are skeptical that he does not control what I write or how I write it, nor does he edit what I write.
"I also would not want stuff drawn out of my article and put into his column.
"It would be even more unfair if he would be permitted to make any unilateral changes to the article.
"I'm NOT suggesting you will share it with him, or that he would make any changes if you did.
" If YOU feel any changes have to be made, I'd (always) like to be the one to make them."
For the record, while I have not studied it word-for-word, most of the article appears to be as I wrote it. I can't publicly undo what has been done, under my byline. But I do want the facts to be known because I have my own personal and professional reputation to protect.
I request that this does not happen again.
Randy Kraft

Good for you, as you have now witnessed a few changes here and there can become a volatile situation. That is what Richard does, it's his specialty. It's his way of still stalking and molesting. Sorry you found out the hard way. Keep true to yourself, the truth is the best defense.

Kinda Funny wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe, if woldow loses the paper and his outlet, we can get the Murphy's to stop using TOPIX and everyone would be happy.

Aren't they on AOL?

the Gazette is still being published.

Feeling Better wrote:

the Gazette is still being published.

where is it? i can't find it. when does it come out?

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
where is it? i can't find it. when does it come out?

Boyers carrys it inside near the lottery booth.