By Logan Andrew
Founder and Editor in Chief, FreeWire
This is not an editorial about whether Bucyrus should raise trash rates.
People can reasonably disagree on that question. In fact, they should.
This is an editorial about how a routine discussion turned into a controversy, how anger made that transformation easy, and how local media failed to slow things down when it mattered most.
A word slip is not a conspiracy
During a Service Committee meeting, Councilman Kevin Myers used the word “rate” when he meant “cost.” The context of the discussion made that clear to anyone watching the full meeting. They were talking about what the City pays overall, not about whether Rumpke had changed its rates.
That distinction matters.
Instead of clarifying it, the slip was seized on as proof of dishonesty. From there, the narrative escalated quickly. Claims of deception followed. Motives were assigned. A routine budgeting conversation was reframed as something far more sinister.
None of that was supported by the records.
Two things can be true at the same time
Rumpke has not raised its in-county rates. That is true.
The City’s cost for trash service has increased since 2019. That is also true.
Those facts do not contradict each other. Confusing them does not make someone a whistleblower. It makes them wrong.
What matters is that the City is paying more today than it was six years ago. Whether that justifies a rate adjustment is a policy decision. But pretending the cost increase does not exist, or treating it as evidence of corruption, does not serve the public.
A necessary correction
In the interest of accuracy, there is an additional clarification that needs to be made.
During the same Service Committee meeting, it was stated that the last trash rate increase occurred in 2009. That information was incorrect. Council records show that council approved a rate increase in 2022.
That error, like the rate versus cost misstatement, did not stem from an attempt to mislead. It was information relayed by city staff and repeated without independent verification.
The mistake here was not deception. It was trust.
What that reveals
Ironically, the incorrect claim about the year of the last rate increase would have been the easier target for anyone genuinely interested in fact-checking the discussion. Instead, it was largely ignored.
What was amplified instead was a single word that could be twisted into a narrative of hidden rate hikes and dishonesty.
That contrast is telling.
It suggests this was never about accuracy. It was about opportunity.
Catching a gaffe is easier than examining records. Twisting a word is easier than understanding budgets. Manufacturing controversy is easier than engaging with substance.
And when controversy forces legislation back to committee, progress slows. Delay becomes leverage. Confusion becomes power.
Where local media failed
This is where local media comes in.
A local publication published claims built around a single word without asking the most basic follow-up questions. No cost comparison. No request for records. No attempt to clarify whether the comment reflected an actual rate increase or a misunderstanding.
That is not investigative reporting. That is repetition.
There is also a broader pattern worth acknowledging. Some local outlets will publish provocative claims while limiting or disabling public discussion around them, whether by turning off comments or by avoiding social media promotion altogether. The result is a one-way narrative that can inflame frustration without allowing it to be tested, challenged, or corrected.
That choice matters.
Journalism is not just about what gets written. It is about what gets questioned, what gets challenged, and whether the public is allowed to engage with it in real time.
Why I’m willing to say this out loud
I’ve been told, perhaps correctly, that it’s bad optics for one editor to criticize another publication. That rule exists in journalism, and like many legacy media norms, its justification often begins and ends with one explanation: because it always has.
That has never been good enough for me.
I find it appalling that any publication would blindly publish claims from an outgoing, lame-duck council president without performing even the most basic fact check. Not because I expect perfection, but because the consequences of that kind of negligence land squarely on the public.
I was reminded of a conversation I once had with an editor at this local paper. I mentioned the mounting criticism they were facing after a mistake, assuming it would prompt some reflection. Instead, it was brushed off casually. The response was simple: people complain, and then they read the articles anyway.
And in that moment, it clicked.
That mindset explains far more about the state of local media than any single error ever could. It explains how accountability erodes, how feedback becomes noise, and how outrage can be tolerated so long as engagement remains.
So to those who may call me names for writing this, for questioning coverage, or for refusing to play along with the idea that criticism should be swallowed quietly, understand this: those names will always matter less to me than the apathy I see from competing outlets when they get it wrong.
I would rather be criticized for speaking plainly than applauded for staying silent.
Why this is bigger than trash rates
This issue will pass. Another will take its place.
What will not change, unless it is addressed, is the pattern. A mistake becomes a scandal. A misunderstanding becomes a motive. Media becomes a megaphone instead of a filter.
FreeWire exists to slow those moments down. To pull records. To ask uncomfortable questions of everyone involved. And sometimes, to say plainly that something being loud does not make it true.
Accountability requires accuracy. Skepticism requires discipline. Journalism requires restraint.
Without those things, everyone loses.
About The Author
