The Mercury Endorses Hatred and Violence
POTTSTOWN, PA – Has anyone else read the most recent online comments accepted and approved by Nancy March, the Editor of The Mercury, regarding the landlord story which ran last Wednesday?
If you haven’t, you can read them those comments here:
Pottstown citizens, landlords comment on proposed ordinance
And just in case The Mercury pulls the comments, here is a PDF of the article and its comments:
Pottstown citizens, landlords comment on proposed ordinance
We find it horribly unbelievable that Ms. March allows this kind of hatred and call to violence to be accepted and published in The Mercury.
The same day these comments were published, a borough home was vandalized and violated.
A coincidence? Of course not.
The slumlords and “good” landlords that suck the life out of our town (and earn income doing it) are getting desperate. And this is the type of garbage they retaliate with.
What is this town coming to? Why is this being allowed?
Concerned resident citizens are working hard to change the way things have been done in Pottstown and this is the thanks they get? And the fact that it’s not called on the carpet and rejected immediately is even more infuriating.
The Mercury needs to start acting like the “progressive” and “concerned” business that they want everyone to believe they are.
Get your act together Mercury and stop fanning the flames of hatred and violence in our town.
Anyone else notice that on the Borough’s website they have a new initiative called “A Cleaner Pottstown?’ Seems like this would make a worthwhile, positive news story.
Sad – who promotes what cause? Not everything needs to be ‘backed’ but it certainly would be nice IF people could come together as concerned parties to solve problems, huh?
I am left amazed by what I read in the Merc. There were some good points on both sides of the issue what I am not seeing is a plan to make changes – changes of significance. I make no judgements about good v. bad landlord or tenant…I know they all exist and some help, some hurt. A system that safeguards as many people as possible is what needs to be in place and enforced.
We complain about salaries and staffing (or lack thereof) and the common thread is help us help you – that is a great solution, in theory. What kinds of promises are all people willing to make to create a changed community? I’m thinking we need a Declaration of Community developed by representatives from all walks of life within the Boro to get things rolling…
Awarness needs to be raised, responsibility delegated, trust given and earned, safety brought back to streets and questionable residences and above all compromise to maintain a better outcome. I am tired of the roadblocks and hope for positive voices and heads to prevail otherwise this town continues to eat itself up whole. Chips need to come off shoulders and heads need to be put together. I think people, in general, have become so vested in their beliefs that they have lost the capacity to educate (or reeducate) themselves on the current state of things and they, then, allow themselves to oppose anything that isn’t a part of their vision for this town.
As far as the attacking of all the groups in the Merc…I have my own opinions which I will sum up in this thought: Activism takes strength of character and threats are made by those that choose not to be activists – all people have goals and desires and the key is turning those into reality. I don’t need to know anyone’s plan about how to make the Boro a better place but I’d sure like to hear as many thoughts as possible so that a plan grows from within one person’s or group’s agenda, if it is well-intented, has merit any day of the week.
The constant cycle I continue to see is small pockets of people trying to do things and fading into the shadows because of a louder group spaeking against them – it is non-productive. Rather, I’d like to see people getting behind a group to foster a broader vision. People, it seems to me, would rather leave things at an arm’s length or shut things down because they just don’t agree with a method or a thought they’ve heard expressed…it is this kind of behavior that perpetuates the cycle and drives a bigger wedge into the heart of the community.
I am sad for the violence on display against community members and their homes and possessions. People are correct, these things will keep P’town from turning around and keep people from buying and investing here so what are any of us prepared to do about it? Where can concerned people go to have open debate and discussion regarding the health of the town and its components? How can groups of people meet and have other groups not feel excluded?
Opportunities have to be found and somehow, someway people need to make it a priority – even with work schedules and other activities. You can’t be heard if you don’t show up or hand your concerns to a neighbor to vocalize for you…particpate w/o harsh words and hate. I hope the town can recover and move forward from this mess – time will tell.
I’m not sure I understand the point of this posting. The only “vile” comments seem to have been left by a poster calling himself “Casualposter”, and those comments were stricken early by the Mercury as they are also absent from the PDF verson.
While I agree that slumlords exist in Pottstown, and that Pottstown is suffering as a result, there are legal remedies for that situation, which Pottstown officials have seemed far to reticent to enforce for too many years.
I’m glad the situation is now being explored by Council and being reported on by the local press. It certainly is local news. So what would SavePottstown have the Mercury do? Not report it? Sensor comments from landlords? In our system of government, even slumlords enjoy first amendment rights. I am not defending slumlords when I state that we really wouldn’t want it any other way.
The Press’s job is not to influence the political destiny of their readers. Nor is it to promote the ideology of any one group of people, despite how the members of the Press may personally feel on an issue. That’s what the main stream media of our nation is doing today, and it is ruining our very form of government.
While I agree that the Mercury may not have reported as deeply as they should have on certain past issues (which I will not bring up again here), I have no beef with the way they are handling the slumlord issue. It’s not up to them to resolve it. It’s up to the citizens, the voters, and the town officials to resolve this issue, and all of them have been far too slow to act, in this case.
I agree with the one Mercury poster who said, “It’s time for Pottstown citizens to take back their town.” I’m encouraged by some early indications that that is slowly beginning to happen, but the pace is very slow.
The last three comments by the poster “Visionquest” are very incendiary and should never have been approved and posted online by a self-anointed “responsible” media outlet, but yet, as of this writing, they still appear online.
Open up “their books”?? Excuse me…but are we talking about registered 501(c)(3) organizations here? I don’t think so. We’re talking about a group of concerned residents wanting to create change in the community that they live in…something in Pottstown that’s been a long time coming.
SavePottstown,
I actually agree with some of the points that “Visionquest” made in his 3rd to last comment, although not the tone of the message. As for the last two, I agree that he went a bit overboard. (Well, maybe even a lot overboard.) What you say in your second paragraph above is certainly correct. Perhaps someone will echo those remarks on the Mercury forum.
All of that said, While I am NOT at all sympathetic to “Visionquests” message, I still don’t see anything so far that the Mercury should strike, or that oversteps the bounds of the spirit of free speech. Perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
so now the mercury has let its online comments spin wildly out of control and a hate crime was committed the same day that there were posts by this visionquest person.
the mercury needs to provide the ip address of the person registered to their site as visionquest and turn that information over to the police so they can track down the person and file charges. it’s pretty obvious, to me anyway, that this visionquest person followed up physically to their threatening online comments.
that’s just plain irresponsible on the mercury’s part. shame on them for sitting by idly and doing nothing. it’s their site. they have total control over the comments that appear online.
“The only thing different from you and those on the watch list is that they carry guns. Personally I consider those who work to control the mind/thought process FAR MORE DANGEROUS because it is so subtle”.
THAT statement sent shivers down my spine! I feel like this person does need to be looked at by the police. Maybe its a good thing that the Merc is as stupid as he is or he wouldnt be outted as a scarey creep. Can the merc identify him? I hope the police are giving her extra protection because everything feels evil about this.
friendofpottstown,
I probably would have agreed with your comments before I received an email from someone who was out-spoken against the slumlords and drug-dealers in their neighborhood and then had their house vandalized. Believe me when I say, these are the kind of folks we need to keep here in Pottstown, not try to scare away. The email left me speechless, if only for a brief time. In my mind, the jury is out as to who was more likely to be behind the crime, but either way it boils down to irresponsibility on the behalf of the landlords, without which there would be far less drug-dealers living in these neighborhoods.
I felt compelled to go to The Mercury’s website to try to better understand what had been happening, as The Mercury online is definitely not in my regular routine these days. I agree with 422er’s comments and think that it seems odd that all of this came to a head at the same time “Visionquest” began making pointed and untrue allegations towards those of varying opinions. I was disturbed by what I read. The insinuations and outright attacks may have been slightly short of threatening, but they were certainly meant to be equally as intimidating to anyone speaking out about the slumlord crisis we have in Pottstown.
Do I believe in censoring, absolutely not, but that is not what we are talking about here. This is better likened to a crowd that is cheering on a fight, watching encouragingly in the hopes of seeing lots of blood and witnessing someone go down and then scattering when the police arrive. The flame was fanned by The Mercury’s editor by allowing this discussion to spiral downhill to the point of it being an unhealthy and anti-productive dialogue chock full of undeniable hostility.
This all leaves me wondering, if someone/something fans the flame that catches the house on fire and then watches as the entire block burns down, claiming that the match didn’t belong to them, aren’t they still to be held responsible? Aren’t they still arsonists?
Amy,
I had not been aware of the physical damage. I agree, that is awful. Are there also threats of physical violence to persons or property, or implications of such, on the Mercury site? If so I haven’t seen them.
I can certainly see where folks would connect the two, however. What would you think about informing the Mercury about the malicious act, and the timing? That, in itself, is news that people ought to know about. (Unless there is fear of more retribution.)
Amy Francis said: “unhealthy and anti-productive dialogue.”
That is exactly what played out for several days. It was coming from all sides of the issue. And it escalated. Someone should have pulled the plug, but it didn’t necessarily have to be the Mercury.
There is a lot of work to be done, the rental issue being one of many. There are always going to be some people going off, but those of us who want to be productive and get some work done are going to have to step back from the keyboard now and then — just because it’s the right thing to do. I’m with Monkeybiz – “chips need to come off shoulders.” Maybe that’s easier said than done, but being aware of it is the first step.
The rush to judgment about the online forum leading to the vandalism is just that – a rush without details. Some people want to feel safer in their neighborhood, and they are trying to change several things at once, any one of which could have led to someone getting angry and retaliating. The motive and the culprits remain to be found, but I hope every effort is being made by the police to get to the bottom of it.
We gotta remain aware and vigilant about everything we type. It’s just not the same as face-to-face, and it’s too easy to go overboard. I’m talking about self-censoring: Do my words keep the dialogue productive? Is it healthy or am I going too far? Or is someone else going too far and it’s time for me to step away and not provoke them further?
It may sound like I’m advocating “backing down,” which is certainly not something I learned growing up in Pottstown. Seriously, this way of talking/battling with chips on the shoulder is just all so familiar. But what I’m really advocating is being in control, so the town and residents can get what they want — all the good things they want and deserve. If somebody else gets the last word in an online forum every now and then, so be it. This is a long haul. We have to keep our eyes on the long-term goals. And keep everyone safe.
I commented to someone in an email earlier today – I swear there’s a link between community troubles escalating and heat waves. It’s gonna be another hot one this week, so keep walking through the sprinkler or something.
Your friend & advocate,
Sue
Sue:
I agree that it may be hasty to link the two together unequivocally at this point, and I didn’t mean to imply that. Of course there is nothing outright in the content that states someone was planning on committing a hate crime, although there seems to be pretty many comments that were eliminated after the fact if you read the whole string. Bullying is always more subtle than that anyway, this we know…it doesn’t make it any less serious or dangerous.
I stand behind my statement that it seems suspicious, and I am suggesting that The Mercury has the responsibility at this point to forward the string to the authorities to see if there could be a connection. To say it plainly – accountability. I agree that people must show more constraint while at their keyboard and exercise self-censoring a bit more often – however, when that doesn’t happen it is ultimately the online editor’s responsibility to do so. If it doesn’t happen at that level than their boss (I assume that would be Nancy March) needs to pull the plug – hopefully she’s monitoring the dialogue after a certain point, too. The Mercury does need to take some ownership at some point.
I have chosen not to visit The Mercury’s website to post comments anymore, because there never seems to be adult dialogue happening there and I always come away feeling like I was at a professional wrestling match. Perhaps it is a good suggestion to others.
I’ll go back to my analogy: This is better likened to a crowd (The Mercury) that is cheering on a fight (between online commenters), watching encouragingly in the hopes of seeing lots of blood (we know as per Mercury employees that blood sells papers…well, it makes their website sticky, too) and witnessing someone go down, scattering when the police arrive (or perhaps when someone has their property vandalized).
Power to the Pottstown People!
maybe nancy march should re-run tom hylton’s cyber bully advertorial and replace the mercury’s name everywhere th mentioned this site. the truth hurts!
Hi, Amy -
I was mainly questioning the incendiary title of SP’s post and the assertion: “A coincidence? Of course not.”
As I said earlier, there were/are several things going on: complaints about landlords and tenants online and on the street; complaints about drug activities online, on the street, to the police; community organizing; speaking out at public meetings. Any one of these or the combination could put the growing number of people engaging in these activities at risk for retaliation. We do not know yet who was specifically responsible and what their specific motive was.
Disclosure that is not a secret anyway: I do link to the Mercury from my blog & am one of their Town Square bloggers. They’ve provided links to my First Suburbs pieces. Does that make me part of the “system?” I guess so.
I agree with FriendofPottstown about the role of the press and I’m not sure either that the comments rose to the level of censoring/stopping posts, but it sure was escalating in a very negative way and becoming less coherent – never a good sign. The investigation of the ensuing vandalism should certainly look at all possible perpetrators.
I am unclear about the whole chronology and content of comments that were apparently pulled. I do believe that I posted early on for the article in question – or some other link to it – where there were quite a lot of comments. Over the past several days, I have not been able to find that version and that string of comments. Perhaps this was where the conversation took a turn for the worse and The Mercury actually did try to pull the plug? And then the conversation continued at this other page link?
But to put up the Mercury as the responsible party for an act of vandalism – I just don’t see it. It took 10 or 20 or 30 people to tango on that thread last week. Was the paper itself part of that tango? Absolutely; they provided the forum. Were they leading the way? No. The grown-ups who commented are responsible for their own words online and their actions offline. I think those of us who want to get things done in the real world should avoid giving/getting provocation online. It’s not worth it.
Sue
Evan is not commenting! Look forward to reading his opinion.
OK, Evan. So where are you now? Is this too heavy a topic for you to weigh in on? Have you nothing with which to defend The Mercury?
I beg your pardon, but I believe that the above comment is a perfect example of provoking comments…the exact kind of comments that you are saying should not be taking place in any kind of forum.
I admit that I am now also probably falling into that category, but this whole idea that the Mercury is promoting hate and violence is so completely ridiculous that I can’t keep quiet anymore. And now you are going to allow the same kind of “incendiary” comments (and also stories), except targeted at one specific person?
I agree with Sue’s comment that provocation should not be given online if things want to be accomplished. I thought everyone else who has commented agreed. Apparently not.
Well, I’ve been asked, so before we start speculating on why I haven’t answered, I suppose I had better.
I haven’t commented for two reasons:
1) I was trying to get more information, both from the police and from Katy and
2) not having more information, it would be difficult to make an informed comment about the incident or its cause.
There are some things which can be said generally however.
Firstly, I feel badly for Katy.
I personally know how unsettling this can be.
A while ago the glass front storm door of my house was shattered with a rock in the evening while my wife and son sat two feet away watching television.
Where we scared? Yes.
Was I angry? Yes.
Did I have suspicions about who it might have been? Of course, it’s where the mind goes first.
Did I accuse anyone publicly of doing it? No.
And as it turned out, I was wrong.
My neighbors across the street witnessed it and gave chase, saying it was a bunch of teenage kids.
The police never caught them, although they did come out quickly. I decided a bunch of teenagers probably did not have a political agenda.
So I feel for Katy and her family.
Otherwise, I agree with Sue Repko in her approach on this and I think adults need to be responsible for what they say, but you’ve all heard my riff on that and my feelings about anonymity.
Do I find it ironic that a site where nasty comments and personal attacks are common and on which I have said people should be more careful about what they say, is now complaining about a site in which a nasty comment was made?
I think you know the answer to that.
Note that The Mercury is taken to task for not pulling the comment in question (although some apparently were pulled, but not the right ones as far as this site is concerned), but this site’s administrators then copy the offending comment as a PDF and post it here to preserve it, just in case we pull it, which is what we were apparently supposed to do in the first place.
I don’t know about you but I’m confused.
If Save Pottstown is truly convinced that the comment instigated violence (something of which I am not yet convinced); doesn’t posting it here (twice) on your site make you guilty of the same crime?
Couldn’t it still instigate violence tomorrow, or the next day?
I would hate to think this site, dedicated to the improvement of Pottstown through the anonymous vilification of those it feels work counter to that goal, would keep a comment it considers dangerous and to have the potential to instigate violence on public display just to make some hay with The Mercury.
Why it sounds positively like something The Mercury would be accused here of doing.
Nevertheless, is it possible that a comment on The Mercury website instigated that crime? Yep.
The possibility exists 365 days a year. Could we possibly know, given the often unpleasant nature of some of those comments, which ones will and which ones won’t? Of course not.
Should we stop all opinion posting to prevent that? All respect to minority leader John Boehner, but that sounds a little like killing and ant with a nuke.
Are there 100 other possibilities? Yep.
Is it possible that a comment allowed on this site could instigate violence? Sure.
Quick, which one is it?
Why hasn’t it been pulled?
Do I know what the truth is about this specific incident? No.
Am I comfortable commenting on what the truth is without knowing more? Nope.
Are some people here prepared to do that? Apparently, as is their Constitutional right.
As I’ve read the primary post here, the bulk of the evidence that The Mercury is responsible is, to use their word, “coincidence.”
I have e-mailed Katy and put a call in to the police so we can gather some facts about this incident and we will report on it as best we can.
In the meantime, by all means, continue your conversation. Don’t let me get in the way.
I think its a valuable conversation and long overdue.
I haven’t seen too much in the way of solutions here.
Want mine?
Stop being anonymous, on both sites. That can happen tomorrow.
Were we to force it at The Mercury site, the howl would probably as loud as the one that occurred here when I made a few speculations about people’s identities.
But it is a choice that any adult can make any time.
Amy Francis made it. She stopped commenting anonymously and uses her name and I, for one, respect her all the more for it.
Some of you here comment on both sites.
What’s stopping you from standing behind what you say?
Certainly if that were the case, it would be much simpler for the police to investigate the very possibility so many here have decided is likely.
Isn’t that what we want? Isn’t that preferable?
Be yourself. Stand behind what you say.
I think we would all find the conversation a lot more civil, the possibility of incidents like what happened to Katy might just be reduced.
I agree…everyone should reveal their names on here…starting with the Mercury employees who come on here as the anti-SavePottstown bloggers.
Show me yours and I will show you mine!!
I assume that that is in reference to me?
I assure you that I am in no way connected to the Mercury and I also have no problem identifying myself. I simply used an alias to make my opinion known.
My name is Lynn Reinhart, I grew up in the local Pottstown area and have been working for a local construction company for a number of years. A colleague of mine told me about this site one day and I looked at it out of curiosity. My father was a Mercury employee a very very long time ago. As a result, I became a loyal reader when I was only a teenager, a trait which has continued with me far into my adulthood. Also as a result of that, I became aware at a very young age just how hard Mercury employees work to do their job, which is reporting the facts, while at the same time trying to better Pottstown, and I believe that all of the current employees do the exact same thing today. Hence, my dislike for when the Mercury and its employees are criticized.
As far as I am aware, Evan is the only Mercury employee who is on here. Nice try.
Who’s next?
When it comes to the Mercury, you have blinders on. They only report what they want, they don’t report all the facts so people can decide their positions. And they favor the almighty Tom Whocandonowrong Hylton. Whatever he decrees is important and he is in there manipulating the editor at least once a week.
“Some of you here comment on both sites.
What’s stopping you from standing behind what you say?”
Not a fair comparison. The sites have different owners, different objectives, and a different reader base. Judgement of virtue, merit, and ethics aside, it’s simplistic to think that makes no difference.
“Show me yours and I will show you mine!!”
…..
I think the thing we should all take note of is the fact that Katy put herself out there as a passionate and caring individual and look at what that got her. It is unfortunate that people have come to realize they might potentially get more points across and out there for consideration through anonymity. I am not suggesting that it is the motive behind or even the reason people have made the choice to go this route – I offer it as an interesting parallel, only.
To answer the question what is stopping me, personally, from standing behind what I ‘say’ – nothing. Some things are better said off the record and others on the record. I stand behind my thoughts here and the ones I offer as me. It shouldn’t make either any less valid. These are personal opinions or observations and not presented as political platforms to be held to by anyone. I am just human and sometimes make mistakes in my logic and reasoning and this is a venue to kinda ‘sound it out’ sometimes.
I don’t ask for respect for this choice, though I do ask for kind consideration from those that read what I do have to say when I say it.
That’s all.
Friend of Pottstown:
You wrote: “Not a fair comparison. The sites have different owners, different objectives, and a different reader base. Judgement of virtue, merit, and ethics aside, it’s simplistic to think that makes no difference.”
Your argument is that virtue, merit and ethics depend on the situation and the forum. It is called, I believe, “situational ethics.”
By extension of that logic, this is a forum where merit, virtue and ethics are less necessary and less important and can be ignored if the circumstances call for it.
I won’t comment on your somewhat harsh judgment of this site as you imply those things are not called for here. Further, I’m glad, by extension of your argument, that you consider the website run by my employer as the one in which merit, virtue and ethics are called for, if not always observed.
Not to sound too sanctimonious (too late!), I hope never to put myself in a position in which I feel comfortable setting virtue, merit or ethics aside. I consider that a way to live, a way to conduct yourself, not an irksome rule to be applied only on websites where it is the rule of thumb.
If it is simplistic to subscribe to merit, virtue in ethics in all things you do and not just when the website calls for it, then color me simplistic. (He now climbs down off his soapbox and immediately slips and falls face down in the mud.)
Yep, it is too late Evan.