The Plymouth Independent story about Selectman Golden’s storm activities seems to continue the publication’s descent into partisan journalism. What is the point of questioning the motivations of an individual who helps others out during a very difficult storm? Those who plowed us out, those who got our electricity back on, those who worked for Town agencies responsible for being first responders, etc., we thank them. We don’t ask what their motivations were, or how they benefitted from performing the service, we are grateful that they do the job they are paid to do and at times go above and beyond.
Many administrators and board members in the non-profit sector have policy and political motivations and are paid for their good deeds; Selectman Golden was not. Whatever motivated Selectman Golden, or some other neighbor to help a neighbor is not something to question in times of great need. When politicians “bring home the bacon,” anyone who doesn’t believe there is a motivation of some personal political gain is completely naïve, and that politician is not criticized by his/her constituency. How were Golden’s efforts an “unwarranted privilege” others couldn’t get? Did anyone block the other select board members from offering assistance?
From what I have seen Selectman Golden gives priority to the needs of Plymouth’s citizenry. Some of the other selectpersons choose to unnecessarily indulge in efforts for some groups or factions at the expense of others. These other selectpersons have agendas that are never questioned by the Plymouth Independent’s reporting. PI is clearly an extension of one side of the political agenda. That is not a healthy place for a local publication to be if it truly seeks to perform a non-partisan public service.
– Tim Costello