Misleading frack job
What a misleading title on your cover: “Frack tracks? Activists: Mysterious land scars may be caused by oil/gas waste” ( July 19).
The body of the story concludes otherwise, that the linear patterns on the ground are “simply areas where livestock feed was deposited.”
Disinterested state officials dismissed the activists’ claims conclusively. Shame on you for a sensational headline.
The lines apparently had nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing or oil and gas waste, but everything to do with unfounded accusations by a group of activists.
I read this article on “frack tracks” and wanted to say that with 10 years’ experience in photography and graphic design your gray “spills” in those photos are not part of the original photo.
Any lay person could notice the inconsistency in terrain, color and pixels.
If indeed there are areas which look suspicious, why would you doctor them to make them look different?
Unless in their original appearance they didn’t seem “significant” enough to raise concern ... which makes you, your cohorts and this paper look suspicious to me.
Also, you may want to find a more skilled intern to do your Photoshop work.
Shame on you. Derek Jolly/via Internet Editor’s note: Boulder Weekly did not alter the photos in question.
Until I read “CU searches for conservative counterpoint” ( July 12, In Case You Missed It), I was bemused by the university’s plan to hire a visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy.
However, even as a lifelong social liberal, I was stunned by the dangerous and ignorant list of stereotypes in the anonymous column. The assumption that conservative thought is synonymous with the Republican Party and that all conservatives oppose ethnic studies courses, dismiss global warming or want to eradicate free speech is outrageous.
The uninformed columnist is precisely the reason that a visiting scholar in conservative thought and policy is essential and, it appears, long overdue.