In my 13 months here, I’ve researched, investigated, and written about plenty of “issues” that have sparked debate, drawn criticism, and stirred arguments from all sides. I’m occasionally accused of “finding a villain” in my investigations and shaping a narrative to fit my view. That’s not entirely wrong — though it’s never my intent to mislead. I simply call things as I see them.
Much of the current controversy involving the Cameron School District — from county residents like Heath Gilbert and Dan Landi to recent visitors from Kansas — centers on claims of First Amendment violations. I respect their passion and understand some of their concerns, but I’m uneasy with the tactics being used to make their point.
When legitimate grievances turn into ambush-style videos, recorded phone calls, and public confrontations, the message gets lost. What begins as a “tap” too easily becomes a “poke,” then a “shove,” all in search of a viral moment. The result? Ordinary people — just doing their jobs — are caught off guard, and emotions run high. That’s not productive.
The Eravi Letter
Mr. Michael Eravi, of Lawrence Accountability, LLC, in his letter published elsewhere in this issue, wrote:
“Mr. McLaughlin, having been sent a second article in which you’ve mischaracterized events and falsely labeled motives, I must ask if you’ve actually reviewed the full video of the events you are misinforming your readers about?”
Yes, Mr. Eravi — I have. And I stand by what I wrote. To claim I “misinformed” readers implies intent to deceive. That’s not the case.
He continues:
“It is abundantly evident that both the Doctor and myself were attempting to do a simple open records request… mishandled by district staff, made worse by incompetent school officers, and escalated by local and state police.”
Abundantly evident to whom? No one I saw in that video believed your intent was to file a simple records request. With few exceptions, everyone I’ve spoken to saw it as a stunt — designed to provoke a reaction, record it, and perhaps set the stage for legal action.
Dr. Spiehs has a known history of such tactics, and your own letter suggests similar intentions. What was the records request, exactly? What information did you seek? Did you check district policy or follow the normal process? It doesn’t appear so.
Imagine being the receptionist that day — confronted by someone she didn’t know, who wouldn’t identify himself, asking for entry while recording video. Legal or not, that’s unsettling. Given the times we live in, and the experiences school staff have had, hesitation is understandable. I don’t blame them one bit.
Manufactured Conflict
You wrote:
“Your police, school district, and now the local newspaper have all taken part in false narratives that impact people’s lives… Had we been met with smiles and helpful attitudes, we’d have gone home wondering what the issue was. Instead, personnel called law enforcement for a problem that didn’t exist until that moment. Now the eyes of the world are watching. This wasn’t a one-day event that’s over. Unless this behavior changes, these out-of-control authorities will cost taxpayers more than they can afford.”
And one point of which you are 100% aware. It was you, Mr. Eravi, that suggested, out loud to SRO Palmer that he should call local police for backup. No one buys the suggestion that this was a helpful hint.
It was your subtle way to escalate the situation, and you got what you wanted. “Here they come,” you said on your video.
This also helps make the point the City Manager and Acting Police Chief made in the past two Council meetings.
When they receive a call from the school, they respond.
That said, you’re entitled to your opinion. But in that paragraph, you reveal your hand. You came looking for a problem — and helped create one. You didn’t uncover news; you manufactured it, packaged it, and now expect the community to applaud your “exposé.”
And those closing words — “Unless this behavior changes…” — are what we in journalism call fighting words.
This Community Doesn’t Intimidate Easily
Cameron is not perfect. People here disagree with local government, schools, and law enforcement — as they do everywhere. But our residents raise issues respectfully and work to resolve them without confrontation.
I appreciate the local voices pushing for transparency. But tactics like yours — flying in, launching attacks, and threatening to “be back” — don’t inspire smiles or cooperation. They damage credibility and harden divisions.
In this town, people will push back on unwanted, unsolicited interference from outsiders.
The Final Challenge
You ended with this:
“You will need to decide which you are beholden to — the truth, or the preferred narrative… I am not above walking your remaining subscribers through your slanted coverage and maintaining an intensive focus on future reporting.”
Here’s my answer: this paper serves Cameron, not outside agitators or online audiences.
When I file a Sunshine Request, I follow procedure — buzz in, identify myself, and wait for my documents. It’s not always easy, but incidents like yours make it harder for everyone.
If you’re drawing a line in the sand, fine. I stand squarely behind our schools, our teachers and administrators, our students, our police, and our Missouri State Patrol.
Every community has problems. Every institution can improve. But before we invoke the First Amendment, we’d do well to remember the Golden Rule — treat others as we wish to be treated.
There’s no compromise on that point.
