VALLEY REVIEW: An exciting, new local newspaper, or a Rowe Dream Team election vehicle?

(An Editorial by L. Storm)

We were heartened when this newspaper was first published, as it seemed a significant step above its predecessor printed by Kenton Coy, The Sky Valley Weekly. (Or, as some had dubbed it, The Sky Valley Weakly and/or The Sky Valley Reekly). That publication lasted almost one year to the day of its first issue. However, during its publication it did fulfill its purpose. One of those was to act -- and this pun is most definitely intended -- as a decoy to the impact our website was having -- by offering a mouthpiece for what some call the "Good Ol' Boys," a moniker I have never particularly liked since, while it is descriptive enough of some few people in Sultan, it is also far too close to other derogatory words I learned to dislike early in life when someone called my best friend -- one of the most warm, sweet and sensitive of God's creatures, his only flaw (apparently) being of Italian descent -- a "Wop."

Then the Valley Review came along. And despite what most might think, I fervently hoped it would overcome the flaws of its financial backers and supporters and publish real news. There is absolutely a need, I feel, for such a publication for Sultan and Gold Bar and the Valley east of Monroe. While the Monitor does an outstanding job, for the most part, there's a lot of little, teeny stories that need to be told which have nothing to do with politics. I thought Merle Estrin did a terrific job of covering The People of Sultan for The Weakly, but, alas, was constrained to a certain extend by the perspective of her editor and his financial supporters.

Unfortunately, one thing seems clear now: The Review is nothing but a recycled Weakly on better-quality paper, minus the libel. But its so-called coverage of the candidates for mayor and council is proof enough of its single-minded purpose: To reelect Mayor Rowe, and slide Derek Boyd and Jim Flower into council seats.* I can certainly go into specifics to support that statement, but I've got lots of other, more important things to do with my time. I'll let the commenters on my discussion forum sort it out. (Although I think they already have.)

And should our website be compared to the Valley Review? To answer that, let me tell you a story. In a conversation with one of the candidates a couple of weeks ago, he tried justifying The Review's Leaning Pisa-style of "reporting" by trying to compare it to our website. Nope. Can't do that. For several reasons.

First and foremost, The Review bills itself as a newspaper, therefore subject to specific journalist ethics. And although we always strive to attain the very highest standard of accuracy and ethics, ours is a personal website published by an extremely small staff of non-paid volunteers, and is a communication vehicle that is not a newspaper, not a website, but an amalgam.

Second, The Review is published and distributed for general consumption and can be picked up by anyone who happens to stop in Sultan on their way through town (i.e., the Sultan Bakery, True Value hardware store and various other local merchants). And because it is a printed medium, and most folks tend to believe what they read in a newspaper, people are being fed a very finite, very biased view of Sultan. People who click into our website do so as a voluntary, purposeful act.

The third difference between The Review and our webiste is its circulation base. ** Editor Brady Boucher -- or whomever is truly behind this paper -- has "borrowed" some list or other (hopefully, they paid for it) by which to provide its circulation base. Some folks think this has been obtained from a database distribution firm, some believe the voter database is being used, just as its predecessor did. In any event, the paper is clearly being sent UNSOLICITED to people's homes, which some could argue is the equivalent of those pesky, unwanted telemarketer calls during the dinner hour. However, by placing your name on a Do Not Call list, you can avoid such future nuisances via phone. Not so the Valley Review.

Bottom line? When ignorant or uninformed folks read such a paper, they tend to believe it. The publishers know this better than anyone. And here's a true story to support that claim. Ray's almost-80-year-old mother (who, by the way, for all those "Oh, they don't even live in Sultan!" detractors, does live in Sultan) received last week's edition and saw Rowe's photo with a distant look on his face, seated at the council table (looking very "mayorly" indeed in front of a very large American flag). Her comment was, "Oh, the man looked so sad!" The photo was placed to the right of the article about the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Mrs. Faltich, whose 16-year-old daughter was killed last December by Mayor Rowe. (Legally, he was cleared of any wrong-doing.) A story to gain sympathy for the poor, "innocent" mayor? Duh. Duh again, and Double-Duh. Mrs. Kistenmacher, however, even though impaired from a stroke she suffered several years ago and, therefore, not the quickest runner off the starting line, also knew enough -- based on our personal experience with, and public view of Mr. Mayor -- to read between the widely-spaced lines of this article. Many people in Sultan (perhaps, even most) do not have the information by which to understand that C. H. Rowe is anything but a victim (including, it seems the Herald's editorial board). Oh, and by the way, here's a copy of the label from the Valley Review that was MAILED to Ray's mom. While this won't put an end to the "distribution by paid marketing list versus Voter database" debate, it does provide irrefutable proof that these "newspapers" are being sent unsolicited to people's homes.

But cheer up. Here's our prediction: If Rowe gets reelected and Rowe & Co. continue to retain a majority on council, this "news"paper will dry up and float away shortly after the election. However, if the Bad Boys don't get their way this time, the paper will continue -- for awhile, at least -- as they try to influence public opinion. And, strangely, I don't begrudge them that. In fact, I would fight for their right to do so. More interesting, perhaps, is I respect their effort more than others who are aware of what's happening here and continue to do nothing, regardless of the "side" they're on. I just wish the publishers -- whoever they are -- of the Valley Review wouldn't make their points in such a ham-handed, transparent, militant-pro-property rights (as long as the property is THEIRS) manner. Our website has often been criticized, not for our message, but the way in which we deliver it. Well, I'm here to tell you that I have the same problem with the Valley Review. And that statement works on several levels. Get thee duffs to the Auditor's office and register to vote. Then, on November 4th VOTE!

- October 10, 2003

Notes:

*This Rowe Dream Team would then reflect the following council: Dusty Boucher and Derek (Broucher) Boyd, who live side-by-side next to the illegally-created Sportsman's Pond, and are bothers), Bruce Champeaux, Rob ("Coin Toss") Criswell, Jim ("I wnat 25-foot buffers) Flower, and John Seehuus, who, although is more middle-of-the-road, although seems to be having a tough time untieing the long-time Sultan apron strings, at least reflected by his Planning Commission voting record. So that Dream Team would leave a single, lonely pro-law proponent on council: Stalwart-for-ALL-the-people, Jeff Everett. Wow. Bring in the bulldozers!

**Circulation: The Review has boasted a subscription circulation of 250-to-1,000, totally unsubstantiated. Additionally, it is being published without any website address or street address, or even the name of the editor, publisher or owner. It provided only a phone number pre-August 22nd (360-793-4944) but then replaced that with P. O. Box 1626. The ONLY contact information it publishes besides the P. O. Box is: "Reach us at valleyreview@aol.com." By comparison, our website has a daily average circulation of 300 individual, discrete users (meaning that if one person visits the website five different times in a single 24-hour period, that user is only reflected once within that 24-hour period, not five times), with a daily average of 1200-1500 hits. Our best single-day per-page figure was over 400, our highest single-day hits total was 9297. These numbers spike when something happens like last summer's Walser episode or during the Prop #1 election period. Also, unlike, the Valley Review, we publish our names, email address, street address and telephone number at various places throughout the website. We WANT people to contact us with their views -- opposing or not. That is what has made us successful. We will ALWAYS publish and encourage opposing opinions.