The Ballroom
SOS Coverage One-Sided
RECEIVED Tue., Aug. 7, 2012
Dear Mr. Editor:
I was excited to read the Save Our Springs retrospective in this week's edition [“The SOS Ordinance Turns 20,” News, Aug. 3]. As someone who came to Austin in 2000, I missed a large part of the SOS wars and therefore was interested to read first-person accounts of this situation.
However, I was very surprised to read only recollections by the SOS folks and not a single recollection by anyone on the other side of this issue. There wasn't a single recollection by Gary Bradley, Jim Bob Moffett, an anti-SOS council member, or even one of their lawyers. Was this intentional? Did they all refuse to comment? Can one truly understand this story by only hearing from one side?
I recognize The Austin Chronicle took a vested interest in the pro-SOS side (and apparently still does), but from a journalistic perspective, it seems a bit shoddy to totally ignore the other side in a historical retrospective.
I was excited to read the Save Our Springs retrospective in this week's edition [“The SOS Ordinance Turns 20,” News, Aug. 3]. As someone who came to Austin in 2000, I missed a large part of the SOS wars and therefore was interested to read first-person accounts of this situation.
However, I was very surprised to read only recollections by the SOS folks and not a single recollection by anyone on the other side of this issue. There wasn't a single recollection by Gary Bradley, Jim Bob Moffett, an anti-SOS council member, or even one of their lawyers. Was this intentional? Did they all refuse to comment? Can one truly understand this story by only hearing from one side?
I recognize The Austin Chronicle took a vested interest in the pro-SOS side (and apparently still does), but from a journalistic perspective, it seems a bit shoddy to totally ignore the other side in a historical retrospective.
Sincerely,
Adam Loewy
Adam Loewy
