No room for political correctness on fires?

"There was little room for political correctness in the Stillwater Pavilion on Tuesday as a packed crowd grilled agency representatives about the handling of August's Derby Mountain fire."

So begins a telling article that touches on the frustrations of fighting wildfires in Montana this past summer.

Apparently, a private helicopter that had been dumping water on the fire was called off by the Forest Service.

"We never, ever intended to run that guy out," said Jeff Stockwell of the Custer National Forest. "We were only trying to establish communications with that private helicopter."

Whatever was intended, Stockwell should probably lose his job for good.

We all know, after all, that it really doesn't matter if he explains himself or apologizes, there is no forgiveness for anyone who says the wrong thing to a firefighter.

Conrad Burns let his frustration get the better of him this past summer while his base, rural Montana, was going up in flames amidst bureaucratic inefficiencies caused by long-distance management. He did what many human beings do -- he took out his momentary frustrations on someone standing close to him.

One would have thought that that also was a moment with "little room for political correctness." But not when trying to gain control of a U.S. Senate seat for the Democrat party. In that case, political correctness reigns supreme in much of the Montana media, including the Gazette.

Gazette should admit that Burns loss was bad for Billings

In yesterday's (December 19) Gazette, the article "Council approves wish list" reports the worries of the Billings City Council that $15 million in federal funding for various projects around the city may be in jeopardy.

Tucked in the article is a shocking revelation by Bruce Putnam, who lobbies in Washington on behalf of Billings. He apparently stated that in the past, Conrad Burns's "position on the Senate Appropriations Committee made his job easier."

Really? Who would ever have guessed?

If the Gazette editors were honest, they would have run an editorial in the same issue apologizing to the people of Billings for having shot their own city in the foot by smearing the man who worked so hard to bring money to his home-town.

While Montana Headlines will generally be found to advocate cutting both federal taxes and federal spending across the board, one doubts that the Gazette editors are so fiscally conservative in their politics that they are hoping for drastic slashes in all domestic federal spending, including federal spending in Billings.

One also doubts that the editors are so politically dull that they actually believe that Jon Tester, who ranks dead last in seniority in the Senate and doesn't even sit on the Appropriations Committee, will be able to deliver what Burns did.

The only possible explanation is that the editors of the Billings Gazette are more interested in promoting the Democrat party in Montana (and nationally) than they are in the interests of their own city.

It will be a long time before Billings and the small towns and rural areas of Eastern Montana -- where the Gazette has most of its readership and generates most of its income -- have a U.S. Senator who has such an intense interest in and personal love for them.

As was pointed out in the inaugural post on Montana Headlines, the Gazette's endorsement of John Tester alone probably accounted for the latter's miniscule margin of victory. When combined with its unrelenting negative coverage of Burns, it is an uncontrovertible fact that the Gazette had it in its power to send the most powerful advocate for Billings that the city could possibly have.

All that would have been necessary would have been balanced reporting and an endorsement that stated the obvious: having a U.S. Senator that loves his hometown is a tremendous boon to a city. That the editors chose otherwise says it all about how interested they are in their city and their readership.