They have no basis for a recall so Narielle Living of Yorktown wants you to sign her petition. Signing this useless petition will do two things: use ink and waste your time. This is a disgruntled group of left wing disturbed activists that are trying desperately to destroy three people that are on the school board. Two board members, Richardson and Shafer, equally disgruntled, egg them on. The superintendent is angry because he is being exposed for his inept handling of his office. Since his inception, SOL scores have declined.
No Grounds for a Recall, so they ask you to sign a Petition
Analysis of a left-wing activists “news” article:
Location: York County, VA
Author: Brian Reese, Digital Producer, WAVY.com news organization
Date: April 12, 2024
Title: Petition calls for resignation of 3 York County School Board members
Intent of the Author
- The author appears to have the intent of discrediting the three school board members (Lynda Fairman, Kimberly Goodwin, and Zoran Pajevic) by focusing solely on the allegations and criticism against them. This creates a one-sided narrative that emphasizes their alleged misconduct.
Specific Examples of Bias
- Labeling and Negative Framing: The board members are described as having been elected on a “right-wing platform,” which could be interpreted as an attempt to invoke political bias and negative connotations from the start.
- Language and Tone: Use of charged language such as “misconduct and incompetence”, “retaliatory conduct”, “creation of a hostile work environment”, and “racist comments/slurs”. These terms convey strong negative connotations but are presented without substantiation from the accused perspective.
- Selective Presentation of Allegations: Allegations are stated as facts (e.g., “holding unofficial meetings in violation of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act”) without presenting evidence or responses from the accused. This could imply an intent to persuade the reader of the guilt of the board members rather than to inform. The article also elaborates on various serious allegations such as unofficial meetings, ties to a militia group, and racist comments, without providing any statements or perspectives from the accused members for balance.
- Exclusivity of the Petition Supporters’ Perspective: The article highlights the actions and intentions of the petitioners extensively, such as their community engagement plans and concerns about retaliation, without similar detail or defense from the other side.
- Emphasis on Negative Impact: The text highlights the creation of a “hostile work environment” and retaliatory actions against the superintendent, focusing on the negative impact of the board members’ leadership without evidence of these claims being substantiated.
- Use of Charged Language: Terms like “misconduct and incompetence,” and phrases like “denounce the conduct”, “retaliatory conduct”, “creation of a hostile work environment”, “racist comments/slurs” and “restore integrity” suggest a strong bias against the board members, aiming to persuade the reader to view them unfavorably.
- Selection of Sources:
- The article predominantly cites the petition and its supporters, with no direct quotes or perspectives from the accused board members, Lynda Fairman, Kimberly Goodwin, and Zoran Pajevic.
- There is no indication that the author attempted to reach out to the accused parties for comments or their side of the story, which could suggest an intent to portray only the accusers’ viewpoint.
Analysis of the Author’s Techniques
- Omission of Context or Counterpoints: There is no discussion of any achievements or positive contributions by the board members, nor is there any mention of their responses to the allegations, which might provide a more balanced view. The mention of alleged ties to a militia group is a serious accusation that is briefly noted without thorough investigation or evidence provided in the text, which could mislead readers if unproven.
- Appeal to Authority: The petition is said to represent the voice of “concerned parents, educators, staff, and citizens,” which uses the authority of these groups to lend credibility to the allegations without providing specific details or evidence.
- Appeal to Fear: By mentioning that teachers and staff are afraid of retaliation, the author plays on the fears of the community, suggesting that speaking out against these board members is risky, thus painting them in a negative light.
- Vivid Examples: The document uses vivid descriptions of the allegations, such as the board’s ties to a militia and racist comments online, which are designed to shock and provoke strong emotional reactions from the reader.
- References to Previous Articles by this Author: Brian Reese repeatedly references his previous articles on the YC School Board to provide some baseline credibility to this piece. One example, among others is where Reese referenced Carolyn Gallaher from the Department of Peace, Human Rights & Cultural Relations at American University as an expert on Virginia militias. The quotes Reese obtained from Gallaher and presented in the 23 February 2024 article demonstrated her extreme bias against conservative groups, with her analysis as an extreme overreaction or misunderstanding of their intentions.
- Reese selected a quote where Gallaher stated that there would be conflict between militias and law enforcement in York County given the unvetted nature of militia members, the increased partisanship within militia movements and particularly their support for the Republican Party and political agenda after Donald Trump’s presidency.
Overall Analysis
The article employs typical hit piece journalism techniques by focusing heavily on allegations and negative aspects, using emotionally charged language, and omitting any defense or positive attributes of the accused. The article appears to adopt a critical and accusatory tone towards the school board members, which might not provide a comprehensive view of the situation. It seems designed to support the petitioners’ perspective, possibly at the expense of journalistic neutrality. The intent behind this article seems to be to mobilize public opinion against the board members. The focus on negative allegations, lack of balanced viewpoints, and use of emotionally charged language all serve to potentially influence the reader’s perspective against the board members and encourage their resignation by portraying them in a strictly negative light.
