I've been dealing with news reporter from The Oklahoman for the last year or so concerning a retiree's group. The guy is honest and ethical, but has an editor. I was quoted in the paper today, but only a selected part of what I said.

We had over seven hundred people attend a meeting. I arranged for him to be there without the International union reps heading "the informational meeting" knowing it.
The meeting was a snow job intended to keep the retirees shut up about health care benefit reductions and increasing costs.

It was a "trust us, we're all over the issue" BS sales job while they aren't doing much. They droned on and on, mentioning figures, using terms no one understood, etc. but mentioned no solution or effort to cease the indirect theft of pension funds and erosion of our health benefits.

Lucent, our past employer, is taking our pension funds and using them to increase their bottom line, through legal, but unethical means while taking away our health benefits and charging us more and more for less.

What astonished me was that the reporter took pages of notes and asked the International union rep about issues. What the reporter didn't put in the paper was how apparent his lack of creditability was.

The thing is, that however crowds and individuals perceive what is said, it may not be what newspapers report. Whether it is the reporter or the news editor, most times they won't call a snake a snake or a rat a rat.

remember me talking about unions and their reps being yes men?