FSSA Letters. Biased? Discriminatory?

I am frankly disappointed but not entirely surprised about what I've read in the recent FSSA letter regarding the meeting with Dr. Jane K. Fernandes (JKF). The letter sprinkled with JKF's supposed responses of "I don't know's" to an unknown context of discussion that took place sounds very much like cherry picking. I am surprised, however, that this new organization did not produce a full transcript of the meeting. Instead readers must rely on FSSA's reporting by people who are already against JKF, IKJ, BoT or whoever. How would one feel walking into a roomful of people knowing that they basically want the person's head on a platter? Yet, the FSSA get to choose and pick how they want the letters written, all, of course, entirely against the IKJ's administration or JKF.

Next, how can we be assured that future letters or reports written by the FSSA will coincide exactly on how an event took place and what was said during as such? Do we want a fox guarding the hen house when it comes to one way communication with the masses? Or should something else be added to provide greater credibility? How about a transcript then? Perhaps along with a video of the meeting?

For future meetings, the FSSA need to make sure both parties will agree that a transcript would be produced from the meeting for public-wide dissemination afterwards. Those of us who cannot be there would prefer to read a transcript of such a meeting rather than rely on secondary reports that are already heavily biased against IKJ, the Administration, JKF or even the BoT. And even their friends. A transcript cannot show bias in reporting. That way readers can make an informed decision on how well the meeting went and in what context the discussion took place without worry of any potential bias seeping/pouring in by secondary reports covering a meeting of such serious magnitude. This way, the FSSA, or whoever will be responsible for this, will be able to capture the whole context of the discussion that took place. This will ensure greater credibility and believability.

So far, the FSSA has consistenly painted a bleak picture of gloom and doom with a chicken little mentality reponses by constantly shining a glaring spotlight in one direction in thir letters or reports. This reminds me of a formerly communist Russia where newspapers were produced by the government where info is strictly controlled and flowed in one direction in order to maintain the status quo of politics. It's kind of ironic to see that the FSSA is playing into that game as well.

It's time to turn the spotlight around and say "transcript please." Let the people decide what's good or bad by getting rid of biased reporting and discriminatory practices covering serious issues that affects everybody.

As always, there are two sides to every story.