Sen. Young was unfairly criticized
When I get irritated, I find it best to wait and see if the irritation passes. It usually does. It hasn’t this time, however. I am very disappointed with your articles about Cathy Young, our state senator. “Double-dipping” Sen. Young was accused of STAR exemption fraud. Opposite that article you proclaimed “Local STAR exemption fraud numbers low.” These articles made the headline on page one. And your thought provoking question for the day was “Do you think less of Cathy Young after the ‘double dipping’ incident?”
The next day at the bottom of the page you give her response, and state that the OBSERVER “ran an article Friday, which indicated that a paperwork mixup was to blame.” Give me a break. That is not what the headline screamed. Did you contact Sen. Young before you printed that article and ask what the controversy was about? You ended the article in Saturday’s edition by stating that a phone call to “confirm whether Young was now paid in full was not returned.” Did you follow up on another day? Are they paid in full or is she lying? You surely left the door open to speculation.
People often question why more people don’t run for elective office. The OBSERVER has complained in the past about the number of people running unopposed. For what? To put up with crap like that! Most every day on the editorial page you reprint the First Amendment, as if you are some kind of watchdog. I appreciate that because it gives me a good chuckle.
Do I think less of Cathy Young now? No! I still hold her in the highest regard. Unfortunately, I don’t think less of the OBSERVER either. I can’t.
P.S. The above was written before I read your editorial in the March 12th edition. Then you said it is just a “minor error.” So minor page 4 is good enough to address it? So what if other papers picked it up? I’ll ask you a variation of a question my mom used to ask me. If other papers threw their presses off a bridge, would you? Cathy Young deserves a lot better! Four days later you had it figured out!