To be fair, the writing in Lee Bergquist's article "Estabrook Dam earns praise from neighbors" could have been even more biased. Of course, it was based partially on the flawed and biased Matrix the County put forth with The Report: data that misrepresents and underestimates the true cost of removing the dam (and associated rechanneling of the river). It's just that the costs would be partially borne by the Federal and State government, rather than all by the County. PCB remediation will continue either way- a good thing.
2 comments:
I don't quite get the "biased" commentary.? What about the article in your mind was biased towards removal? As far as I'm concerned the Environmental Reporter for the paper is supposed to be biased towards the environment and he should report on things that positively and negatively affect it.
Lee not having mentioned all the environmental positives that will come about from the dams removal was the real tragedy in my mind.
And to quote a guy saying "we will have a Milwaukee stream" was just dumb.
I guess if you wrongly believe that Lee should have reported on what a great thing the dam is, and why it should stay, well then I guess I understand why you are "pissed".
Why is the matrix "flawed" if it leaves out remediation costs for which the county is not paying? Isn't the matrix supposed to show the County's capitol outlay for each option? If remediation, stabilization and restorations are paid for by entities other than Milwaukee County, why should those dollar values go into the matrix? So the MRPA can complain about them?
What was biased about the article? Its title, for starters. The person who posts as "Coulee" on the Classical Angler blog (and seems to be anti-dam from what I can ascertain) thinks it's biased, too. I can recognize bias when I read it, as a critical reader, whether it is biased my direction or not.
Post a Comment