“To the eight of you on the list at the top of this editorial: Is this why you ran for the school board — to allow others to neuter your opinions in the name of faux unity?”
-Mark Mahoney, Keeping the school board zipped up: OUR VIEW: Silencing of board members violates first amendment rights
Mahoney’s December 10, 2008 editorial covers the silence members of the school board are seemingly forced into. Within his editorial, he writes about the ridiculous situation regarding the silence of the school board. Since the board members use taxpayer money, shouldn’t they answer to the citizens? Mahoney believes so.
Within the first few paragraphs, Mahoney establishes the issue at hand while also conveying the oddity of the silence. For the first half of the editorial, it would seem that Mahoney is speaking directly to the reader. However, in the latter half of the writing, he makes a direct question to the members of the board who remain silent (shown above). He is unabashedly calling out those who are unwilling to speak about the school board. The article has then shifted from a mass-communication style to a direct, interpersonal interrogation.
Near the very end of the editorial, Mahoney makes a critical claim: there is nothing that prevents board members from discussing any matter they have ruled on or against. Public officials can comment on any form of negotiation during closed door sessions, according to Mahoney.
Members are also elected by the public, so they cannot be removed by fellow board members. These points all help Mahoney sell the fishy behavior displayed by the board members, hinting at possible 1st Amendment suppression by other members of the board.
“If you don’t exercise your rights yourselves, if you don’t show the government that you value those rights, eventually you will lose them.”
Mark Mahoney, Use your rights…or lose them: OUR VIEW: Getting information from your government is easy — and here’s how
Mahoney’s June 15, 2008 editorial is a combination of informative and persuasive. He claims that citizens need to seek out information on their own to show the government that they do care about government matters. Along with showing you care, it shows the government that the citizens have a need to know what is happening in their community. If the government knows this, they are, according to Mahoney, less likely to hold secretive meetings and abuse their own power.
Combining both persuasion and information, Mahoney instructs citizens/readers on how to request records from their government through a step-by-step process. By doing this, it is clear Mahoney wants to make sure that citizens keep their government in check by constantly keeping tabs on their records. While being a clear call to action, Mahoney raises fair points in his editorial.
If citizens do not care or do not show care about their government, it is very likely for said government to abuse their powers or leave the people out of it, Mahoney claims. Obviously secrets being held from the public is neither right nor wanted, so Mahoney presents a solution to prevent that from happening. Near the end of the editorial, Mahoney also claims he will personally help out any citizen in the process of obtaining or translating a record if they want.
Mahoney’s dedication to 1st Amendment protection is admirable as he writes informative, yet persuasive reports on how citizens can be weary of their rights and what they can do to protect them. Very passionate, Mahoney clearly writes for the benefit of the people, and he is rewarded because of it. Mahoney won 10 Pulitzer Prizes for his work in 2008.
A Royale With Cheese 