![[Fort Scott Tribune]](http://www.fstribune.com/images/nameplate.gif)
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (32)In Demand Networks recently announced its plan for a 15-person production crew to film episodes of a new TV show called "Wack Pack at the Christy's," a program that is offered through digital cable by Howard TV On Demand, a service named after noted radio personality Howard Stern. Howard TV is an affiliate of In Demand Networks.
(Advertisement)
|
"We've denied them access to city property," Fort Scott City Clerk Diane Clay said Friday. "They (In Demand) won't tell us what they're going to do and they're just being very vague."
When contacted afterward, Howard TV Production Assistant Ted Sommer said he was limited in the amount of information he could provide, and only confirmed that the network was, in fact, planning to film a TV show in Fort Scott, a plan that could change.
"It could be canceled tomorrow," Sommer said. "Yeah, I can tell you we are trying to do something in Fort Scott. But that's the only thing I can say at this time."
According to a press release from Howard TV Senior Producer Keith Fenimore, which was reviewed by Fort Scott city officials, In Demand Networks asked the city for permission to film on city property, including the Fort Scott Trolley, Gunn Park, and Buck Run Community Center. That request was denied, Clay said.
Fenimore's written statement also said that In Demand Networks plans to film the series the week of Aug. 24-29 in Fort Scott. The concept of the show involves three people from different parts of the United States -- Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Oregon -- who will travel to the area to discover what life is like in Kansas.
"Our intention is to capture the beauty and novel lifestyle of Fort Scott and by extension, Kansas itself," Fenimore said in the statement.
While in Fort Scott, cast members of the reality show will participate in a variety of different activities including farm work, square dancing, and camping. The cast also plans to tour unique Fort Scott historic sites.
The show will be centered around the farm lifestyle of local residents Tom and Pat Christy, the parents of former Fort Scott native Richard Christy, who now works as an on-air personality and writer for Stern's radio show.
The Wack Pack also plan to help out the Christy's in their barn, plowing their fields, preparing meals and working with the numerous farm animals on the compound. They also plan to join Richard and his father on a hunting and fishing trip, among other activities, according to www.howard.tv.
When contacted Friday, Tom Christy said he granted In Demand Networks permission to film the program on his property after company officials contacted him about the request some time ago.
Richard Christy is a 1992 graduate of Uniontown High School who grew up in Bourbon County before eventually taking his talents to Stern's show.
The Wack Pack is an assortment of regular guests of Stern's radio show who tend to be unusual in some way, such as blatantly racist, mentally disabled, sexually deviant, or having a comical voice or appearance, according to a www.wikipedia.org article about the group. Wack Pack members are often pariahs or outcasts from mainstream society, the article said.
Well, as the writer/reporter of both articles, I'll try to explain this once again so that everyone will understand why the original article ran when it did. And apparently each and every post is not being read.
As a newspaper, we have to run stories of significance in the community when we learn about them and have at least some facts to get out to the public. Concerning the reality show, we confirmed that the production crew was planning to come here more than a week ago, we just had to verify it with the city, which we did.
We strive to get the story out first, because this news concerns Fort Scott/Bourbon County, and since we cover the region, we are obligated to report it. And because we have competing newspapers in the region, we do not want to get scooped by another paper on a newsworthy event such as this, because like it or not, a Howard Stern crew coming to Fort Scott is news.
Unfortunately, both the city manager and attorney were unavailable for comment when the first article ran, so we had to get another city official to comment on the crew coming here. In this case, it was the city clerk, who I assume was commenting on the matter as she was told, but I don't know the answer to that. Either way, we had to get the city perspective, and that was the information we got at the time.
It just so happened that we got the full story and city viewpoint upon the city manager's return. Consider the second article an updated/expanded version of the first one. Hope this clears things up and that readers know where everyone involved stands on the issue.
When I read the article in the Saturday paper (or is it actually Friday or Sunday...I never know what to call it), it appears the city manager was interviewed and that article was much different than the first one. It doesn't sound like they denied access to the film crew, they just didn't give their blessing with the limited information they had. It sounds to me like possibly the reporter who did the first story didn't check it out fully before writing the article. Perhaps he/she should have checked with the CM first to get the full scoop!
WELL... WE PRAISED RICHARD CHRISTY'S SUCCESS AND THEN DENY HIM A "KEY TO THE CITY", TYPE OF WELCOME TO GIVE FORT SCOTT A BOOST OF MEDIA COVERAGE. I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE WACK-PACK BUT I WILL CHECK IT OUT. DO YOU THINK A HOME-TOWN GUY WOULD KICK THE TOWN IN THE TEETH WITH EMBARASSMENT? OR HELP OUT WITH A TOUCH OF POPULARITY?? GO TO HIS MYSPACE/richardchristy AND ASK HIM.
THE TOWN DEFINITELY NEEDS A BOOST IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE!! HOPEFULLY IT WOULD BE A POSITIVE EXPERIENCE!
ok so...who cares?! maybe a lil publicity would be great for this hell called a town. People need to get over the fact that its a "historic town". Yes it is, but seriously, there is NOTHING to do, NOTHING to offer, and is going to end up a ghost town if something isn't done.
I give it about 10 years, it will start to expand, once all the elderly civil war / i love the fort people move on.
How many of you have checked out indemand.com on the internet. I do not want Fort Scott made the setting for a porno film and that seems to be the gist of that network. If everything is proper and this is something the City would be proud to host, why can they not tell us the content of their film. A legitimate film company usually has pride in their product and wants everyone to know what is going on. Seems to me the secrecy in not wanting to divulge the content of their film should be enough to make everyone scared of what they have planned. Fort Scott has enough citizens wanting to bad-mouth the City without putting a film on television to allow the world to make fun of Fort Scott.
"The City Manager was the one who made the decision. My understanding is that it was not a request for exclusive access, just our permission/blessing (which they don't need to film on public property to begin with, so I'm not sure why they asked)."
~ They reasons they would ask (since you seem lost on this subject) is A. being respectful, B. most normal towns have an entertainment/film commission. and C. These are legal matters that are normally cleared through a city's film commission. There is usually paperwork involved along with a fee.
Unless you are just the type of person who does not have the patience to look at the credits on a movie you would notice things such as "the cast and crew would like to thank the city of (insert name of city here)."
"Anytime something as simple as this get compared to censorship or communism, that to me qualifies as blown out of proportion. If we were actively barring them from filming the show in the places specified, then maybe a censorship claim would fly, but we're not."
According to the article that is exactly what has been done. So it is misleading to the citizens of Fort Scott. Any piece of literature that furthers a communist state's argument in one form or another is purely propaganda.
A. You haven't officially barred them from filming in these locations and the paper paints a different story.
or
B. You have actively barred them from filming in these locations and it just so happened to make it to the front of the paper. So now the city has to cover its rear end.
And I am sure scenario B is the proper choice here and since in the paper it was stated that "We've denied them access to city property." I am sure that the parent company was informed of these intentions in writing through someone acting on the behalf of the city of Fort Scott. Just as stated in the paper. Misleading both the show's management as well as the citizens of Fort Scott. That is not the type of leadership this town needs or condones. This really shows the citizens of Fort Scott exactly how every important matter is handled. Thanks.
"Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go check to make sure there are no inappropriate books at the Public Library. Who's up for a bonfire?
-- Posted by Nick Graham on Mon, Aug 18, 2008, at 3:05 PM "
Does the library carry Playboy? Some libraries do. Some libraries also carry adult novels. I certainly don't see that in this "library" if it can be called that. Sorry Nick, it seems like somebody else has already beaten you to the bonfire materials gathering session by making sure those materials were never there in the first place.
"Thom, understood. The communism reference was from an earlier post."
That would my comment you are directing this at. There is no conspiracy here...only ignorance. This all comes down to a moral choice. Obviously suggesting they are not welcome here alone, is not enough to suggest communism. However, suggesting they are not welcome here (the city's blessing) due to their choice of program formatting and not allowing them to film (according to the wording in the article...where's the retraction on that one?). Sugar coat it all you will, it's still what has been done.
So to make this simple, suppressing a group of individuals from first amendment rights of free speech via filming their show, is wrong in and of itself. However, suggesting they cannot do this activity because it goes against the "state" as it were ("state" being city of Fort Scott). And Lord knows that the Howard Stern show is morally corrupt...lol
Basically communist leadership of Fort Scott says this activity is immoral and therefore no citizens should allowed to view it or given the right to decide if they wish to condone such actions. We all know that this show and its contents are not morally offensive to a vast majority of people that are of legal age. And if you think that this isn't communism, just ask the people in China whose government regulates what websites they can or can not go to because the leadership says it is either "morally corrupt" or "goes against the values."
I think you my friend need to take another look at the definition of communism.
Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
Where was our vote on this matter? Maybe we as citizens would like to exercise our rights to either vote or sign a petition on this matter. As long as the citizens are not made well aware in advance of such topics of interest (that directly affect us as citizens) we will continue to call communism until this changes. After all said show might aim its propaganda towards our communist government. We couldn't have that now, could we? After all, Howard Stern does stand for everything this town dislikes such as freedom of speech, strong sense of moral ground, diversity, joking, any matters funny, and god forbid....nude individuals.
It is funny how a person can fear this show coming to Fort Scott like they do? Really makes one wonder why they wouldn't be proud to display our town on such a widely viewed and respected (can't say it isn't because the show rakes in the cash big time) syndicate program. While it may not have been voted on and filming rights refused the propaganda splashed on the front of the paper sure told a different story entirely. Nice try by trying to keep your legal communism under the radar.
The only step left is to enact a law that throws us all in jail for speaking our minds. Oh heck, I forgot that's on the agenda for next week. Silly me!
But the paper will report we didn't go to jail, we were never there and as a matter of fact Fort Scott doesn't allow jails. Makes sense right?
The average citizens in this town, under the age of 65 (lord knows we are a minority), have already been thrown through the glass ceiling on top of pile of this city's commission excrement that has been compounding for years.
no instead.... we are going down in history noted for our infamous "cow on the roof", which that photo made it in the newspapers ALL over the world. The "great fire" of 2005 we have really rose like a Phoenix from that one.
please excuse me,but what the ????.
quote "They (In Demand) won't tell us what they're going to do and they're just being very vague." unquote
well hmmmm, they would fit right in here with fort scott,kansas.
maybe we should check and see if Comedy Central wants a wack at us.
Please accept our invitation, learn why our residents call Fort Scott and Bourbon County their home. Let us help you plan your stay. We're ready to do the work; all you have to do is play. Join us for a weekend and you'll end up staying forever. We have what you need in Fort Scott; all that's missing is you! i mean Howard
Thom, understood. The communism reference was from an earlier post.
Nick,
I used the word "censorship" because it IS what it appeared to be by the article...
"We've denied them access to City Property."
That being based on vagueness, and as the paper presented and further discussion here and elsewhere leads one to the conclusion that the usual content of their shows, in being objectionable, was also a factor.
That is censorship.
Nowhere did I mention Communism, or a Conspiracy, or anything over the top.
As I said, it simply is what it is. I agree with One in an Opinion, in may well be the wording used by the Clerk. If they in fact have not been "denied access", only "denied the City blessing" than it is a very different story.
If this was not considered a topic for discussion of various viewpoints, I can't for the life of me understand why the headline reads the way it does.
The part that is extremely misleading is the part where the city clerk says that they've "denied them access."
Obviously this is not what they did.
A poor choice of words at best.
Thanks for clearing things up Jason. Everything you have said makes perfect sense.
I understand you have been short staffed.
It's regrettable the city residents were not given any information in the local paper about the budget that has already been passed and the mill levy that's already been raised.
FSCitizen, you just summarized my feelings on this matter in one paragraph more succinctly than I could in 3 blabbering posts.
Speaking of Borat, he did make a visit not too far from here, only as Bruno (Sasha Baron Cohen's other gonzo character). They filmed a little at the Wichita Airport, and somebody happened to catch a snippet of it on their phone an put it on YouTube.
Being a Howard Stern fan, I was torn between bringing the crew here and passing on it. I believe it was the best decision to pass on it. I doubt very much that most of you have any idea about the program Howard Stern produces. It is vulgar, rude and outright dirty. That being said, it can also be hilariously funny.
There is no doubt that Fort Scott would have (or will be) pictured as a backwoods community with a population of idiots. I'll be the first to laugh at Howard Stern, but I won't trust him.
Take a look at the film "Borat". Hilarious, but I am glad I was not in it. Many persons in the film (agreeing to be in the film) have sued due to the way they were portrayed. Give someone a chance to make you look stupid and someone like the Stern Show will take advantage of it. Count me and the hometown I love, defend and cherish out!
The City Manager was the one who made the decision. My understanding is that it was not a request for exclusive access, just our permission/blessing (which they don't need to film on public property to begin with, so I'm not sure why they asked).
Anytime something as simple as this get compared to censorship or communism, that to me qualifies as blown out of proportion. If we were actively barring them from filming the show in the places specified, then maybe a censorship claim would fly, but we're not.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go check to make sure there are no inappropriate books at the Public Library. Who's up for a bonfire?
Nick,
Since you got the full story, was the crew requesting exclusive access to the Trolley, Buck Run and Gunn Park? Was it the City Attorney who chose to "deny access?"
Jason,
Was a copy of the proposed budget submitted to the paper for publication and was it published in advance of the final hearing on it?
Does the paper expect to be back to covering local government issues now and in the future since someone has been hired?
Nick & Jason,
I don't feel that this issue has been "blown out of proportion" either. There is such a thing as spirited debate and controversy. I think that it has been made no bigger of a deal than the city's making a big deal about making a decision over it. If it were "not a big deal" the City wouldn't have established a policy on it.
On a side note, I invite anyone who has commented now or in the past that FST reporters engage in faulty reporting, ask the wrong questions or leave questions out, or print rumors, lies or fabrications, to give the job a try sometime. I'd like to see how some doubters or skeptics would do as journalists and be on the receiving end of some of the junk that gets spewed out toward us.
We, as journalists and yes, human beings, sometimes make mistakes that we try to account for. But for the most part, we strive to print accurate, timely and important news and feature stories that the public will find an interest in.
Sometimes we have to go with what we've got to press, even if the story leaves questions marks, issues up in the air, or doubts among readers, simply because the story is relevant and as a newspaper, we have to get it out. And it's fine to debate, because everyone is entitled to form an opinion about an issue, and we are here to help inform, educate and shape public opinion.
Plus, if all the details aren't there for a story immediately, a reporter will often follow up on the matter and provide periodic updates so readers know how the matter is shaping out. Hence, journalism. That's what our job is about.
Good Grief, what is going on here? Let me answer some questions so maybe it will clear some things up and some people can just go on with their lives, since apparently this issue is a hot topic right now.
* When I looked into this story last week, the only city official I spoke to was the city clerk, who told me what was going on with the company and their intent to film here, but that I should probably also speak to the city attorney to get the official reason for the request denial. Unfortunately, the city attorney was in court and not available for comment on the matter. So I had to get someone's viewpoint from the city, since it was the city who denied the company's request letter to film on city property, which, just an FYI, is dated July 31, in case anyone wants to know. So ultimately, I don't know whose decision it was, but we had to get the city perspective before we went to press, and that was all we could get at the time since other primary city officials were not available.
* I could not get into specifics of the show or the filming since company officials have chosen not to release any other information at this point, and I received no comments or call backs on the matter from In Demand or Howard TV. No one in the company's office whom I spoke to would talk about the matter.
* The story was on the front page because it is relevant news, and the community should be made aware of any company's intent to film a TV show, movie, etc., in the area. Plus, Howard Stern is a celebrity, like him or not, and bringing his program to the area is a significant event, especially for Fort Scott, and an event that we consider worth of news coverage.
As far as the city budget goes, that is also important, but our newest reporter who has the city beat only started just last week, and in his defense, has not covered a city commission meeting yet and is now familiarizing himself with the city budget. Plus, having been down a staff member the last couple of months, we are trying to catch up on area news that deserves coverage. So the budget, I'm sure, will be the focus of an upcoming story in the Tribune.
I hope this addresses some issues since this whole thing is getting blown out of proportion. The impression I got from one In Demand official was that it was kind of "iffy" anyway that the show would even get filmed, but we won't know until if and when they show up here. Guess I'm trying to determine why this has turned into such a huge deal.
Other than that, I only tried to report the known facts of a story at the time that is definitely considered news and an event that people in our community should know about.
fortscottresident,
The paper never actually said the city clerk made the decision. However, the way it was reported, Nicks lack of knowledge that this even occurred, the city manager being on an extended vacation, left plenty of room for asking the question of just who did make the decision.
When she said "we" she put herself in a position of ownership of that decision. If you reread her quote you will find that is what she said, or at least that is what the paper reported.
If the city clerk did not make the decision then I believe it would have been proper for her to have told the reporter who did make the decision, and it certainly would have been prudent for the reporter to have asked that question and reported it to us.
Bottom line is whoever makes decisions like this should take ownership of that decision and not leave it up to the hired help to give out the info and take any heat for it.
Who has actually owned up to this decision as of this writing? And, no, the answer cannot be "we" unless it was the city commission that made the decision at an official meeting.
Nick,
May I say, that it most certainly is not something small blown into something big.
Apparently the newspaper thought this was important, and they put it on the front page of the paper. In fact it a claim could be made that the paper considered it much more important than the proposed city budget which wasn't covered at all.
I just the full word on this. Apparently a couple of weeks ago a request was sent to City Hall from Stern's people wanting to have permission to film at the park, Buck Run, and the Trolley. Management requested some specifics on what they would be filming there before giving it the city's blessing. There were no real specifics given, just the vague outline of the concept of the show. At that point, management didn't feel comfortable giving the show and kind of blessing or endorsement to film there without specifics on what they planned to do while filming there.
Even without the written consent from City Hall, there is nothing that can prevent them from filming at the park, the Trolley, or Buck Run, as it is all public property (so long as they pay for trolley tickets in the case of the Trolley).
The city isn't, nor could it prevent the show from filming anywhere they want on, but the City Manager didn't feel like we should give them an official blessing or permission to do so, as we don't really want to be be seen endorsing it, which I think a large majority of the voting public would agree with.
In the end, there is no censorship, no blocking from filming somewhere (it's public all property), no communism, and they were always free to film wherever they wanted to, we just won't be endorsing it or tied into it in any way.
Just another something small blown into something big.
I must have overlooked something. Where in the article does it say the city clerk was the one who made this decision? She is simply quoted as saying "We've denied them access to city property." It was probably a decision made by the city manager & could have been sometime ago but we're just hearing about it.
This group is probably nothing the city needs to be tied to. However, there's nothing that says private citizens can't contact them & offer their places. Those of you who want this in our town, call and make your homes & businesses available to them.
I tend to agree with the city's decision on this one.
It's so silly this town has become a total drag, the Elders do not want anything to happen in Good ol Fort Scott. They have had opportunities for several business's to comeinto town to make more jobs increase pay and " THE CITY OFFICIALS " never let anything happen here. Before long all this town will be known for is a retirement community. There's nothing for the kids to do in this town, kids have to travel to Pitts or somewhere to bowl, skate, mini golf anything. What options are left for are children "DRUGS" !!
Fort Scott is becoming a horrible place to live.
Nick,
Does the city have an organizational chart?
"I'm not sure I disagree with the decision."
So Nick are you saying you are also a supporter of this type of censorship?
"They (In Demand) won't tell us what they're going to do and they're just being very vague."
The fact that they even asked for permission is respectable, and I didn't realize access to the Park, trolley or City Hall could be denied as long as you aren't breaking the law.
It seems here that the reason for denial of access is pointing to a moral difference of opinion. I would also think that if this crew is denied access to public facilities by censorship, the real story would be the legal argument over civil rights.
It's also just my guess, that it is more likely that the City Attorney made the call on this one in the absense of the City Manager.
If that is the case, I'm sure the Demand people have their own staff of attorneys and it will all get sorted out.
I was thinking of going to the park today, I wonder, do I need to layout my plans and ask for permission?
Wonder how the new signs on city property will read, maybe something like; "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone based on creed, moral values, difference of opinion, and/or vagueness of proprosed activities."
Whenever the City Manager is gone on a business trip or vacation, another staff member is generally appointed as interim by the City Manager, though to my knowledge it wouldn't be the city clerk, in fact I know it wasn't the City Clerk. Until I can get to the bottom of what happened, I'm probably gonna refrain from commenting online, but I expect it all to be sorted out by the end of the meeting Tuesday night (though as I said previously, I don't know if the decision will be any different). It's not like they couldn't make a fun show without Gunn Park, Buck Run, or the Trolley involved - the whole theme of the show sounds like working on a farm and likely tormenting Richard's poor parents.
It does look like from their website that SuddenLink's digital cable does have iN Demand PPV channels, so strike my last comment regarding that.
Nick,"Nobody on the Commission has even heard of this, at least I haven't, and the City Manager has been gone on a long planned vacation, so I'm assuming this all went down within the past few days."
So, when our city manager is gone, WHO gets to make these kinds of decisions for our city?
This quote below is from the fs tribune article, and if we can believe the reporting it implies that it was our city clerk who was in charge and made this decision.
"We've denied them access to city property," Fort Scott City Clerk Diane Clay said Friday. "They (In Demand) won't tell us what they're going to do and they're just being very vague."
Now I think the city clerk IS a good city clerk with a great track record, and I have no issues with this person at all, I'm just saying,"is this the chain of command?".
Perhaps some city commissioners did discuss it without your knowledge??
Nobody on the Commission has even heard of this, at least I haven't, and the City Manager has been gone on a long planned vacation, so I'm assuming this all went down within the past few days. That being the case I am betting this will be discussed at meeting this week....
Having said that, as someone with some familiarity with the Wack Pack, as well as Howard TV (which is Video On Demand/Pay Per View programming that some bigger cable companies carry, though I don't think SuddenLink, DirecTV or Dish carry it), I'm not sure I disagree with the decision. Basic cable friendly Stewart and Colbert this is not, in fact I'd give them the key to the city if they came (especially Stewart, though my wife is more of a Colbert woman).
As a glance for the uninitiated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wack_pack#C...
http://www.howard.tv/
I've got no beef with them filming a show in the area, though I'm not sure I want to subject Buck Run and Chamber staffers to the Wack Pack, having watched earlier iterations of the Pack back when they showed the Stern show on E! when I was in high school and college. Then again, the idea of BeetleJuice in Fort Scott......never expected that to be a possibility when I ran for office...
I do get a kick out of Richard plugging the hometown on the show- for a while the shut-down of Taco Tico was apparently a running conversation piece on a satellite radio with millions of listeners.
Was this decision ever an agenda item or discussed in a public forum by the Commission? If so I missed it.
I must have also missed the signs that say "No cameras/recording devices allowed" on the trolley or the other city property. Wonder if all of these photos of Gunn Park I have are illegal?
You would think that this crew would be allowed, just so long as no laws are broken. (And to think some folks think my attitude prevents others from coming here!)
Perhaps they wouldn't be projecting enough of a "positive image" of the community. If you're not doing that, you're divisive, un-patriotic, and more than likely just "have a chip on your shoulder."
Wait until Stephen Colbert gets ahold of this one!!!
Worse yet, it may inspire enough curiousity from the media to delve more deeply into the intracities of life and the city govt in a negative way.
If they think there is something to hide, this will really excite them, and the results of that probably wouldn't portray us in a positive light.
It can just as easily be turned into a "48 hours investigates" segment of some sort.
However all that being said, I too do not want them coming in here and making us the butt of their jokes, but it seems we have a good measure of "insurance" with Mr Christys family being part of the show.
"According to a press release from Howard TV Senior Producer Keith Fenimore, which was reviewed by Fort Scott city officials, In Demand Networks asked the city for permission to film on city property, including the Fort Scott Trolley, Gunn Park, and Buck Run Community Center. That request was denied, Clay said."
Interesting....what are the city officials afraid the company will do? Are the city officials that close minded? Have we all forgotten that these officials are elected and just because they may not agree with the particular form of entertainment it does not give them absolute communist control with our first amendment rights of free speech and other freedoms. Are the city officials so blind and scared of "them big city folk" that they cannot see something like this would be major for our small community and would provide many great benefits. Exposure for one. Think about it, this show shows our trolley, and our park and our community center and it's not like Howard Stern is an unknown name. People would flood Fort Scott bringing in money to local stores in which they may not have in their communities just to take home a piece of nostalgia from a show they like, because Fort Scott happened to be where that particular episode was filmed.
It is ignorant, close minded, communist behavior. It's not like the Stern company would be bringing in deviant behaviors such as those found on the Jacka** show. Although that would be funny to see, I am sure that since this surrounds the parents of a radio personality that the pieces that would be done here in Fort Scott would be done with taste. Now you can pretty much ensure with our city officials turning their nose up at this (as they do with everything) that this town will not only be mocked it will be known worldwide and it will definitely be a joke. Thanks city officials...thanks for once again ruining what could have been a golden opportunity. I am so happy you all fine people were elected into our office to ensure that this town flourishes and always have our best interest at heart (note the sarcasm.)