Stuffed in at the end of a IC Press-Citizen editorial entitled "New business features arrive" was this:



"Since our series and forum on the proposed Coralville rain forest, we have received some criticism for the format of the forum. Callers and letter writers have suggested that we did not represent both sides of the issue by only having project organizers and consultants give presentations. Those people are right that the forum was not a debate, but I think they are missing the point. Whether you are for or against the project or somewhere in the middle, the project leaders are where the action is. They are the ones who have to answer the community's questions. We put all of those people in a room with more than 200 community members and let them talk. Audience members could judge for themselves whether to be-lieve them, whether they were providing the right in-formation and whether it was accurate. Then audience members had a chance to ask questions directly to the project leaders and judge how well they answered. I know I've still got questions, but I learned a lot that night."



Are they serious? The project leaders may be 'where the action is,' but their answers are hardly unbiased. This is like relying on the used car salesman to give you the best information on whether to buy a car, and how much to spend.



Even if we were to grant you the format of your "community" forum, don't you think a bit of critical thinking might have been expected from the articles written about the meetings? Instead, we were fed the sales pitch one more time, regurgitated practically word for word with little pretense at analysis. Hey, PC, if you still have quesitons, how about taking a glance at what outside experts have to say about the potential negative implications of the project? Just a suggestion, but you could 'learn something' there, too.