I've attached a PDF of our May 26, 2011, Opinion page. I believe it includes the letter you say in the post below that we "refused to publish."
I must say that I'm disappointed, both in Andy and in Inside Suffolk. I had addressed this issue with Andy already; he had brought the letter along with some other info that he'd already written a separate letter about (and which we'd run). I saw what we'd already published, did not see the new letter in the packet and then put everything aside, knowing that I'd see him again to talk to him about the issue. Indeed, he visited my office a few weeks later (assumedly after showing the letter to you) and asked why I'd chosen not to publish his letter. When I explained the situation to him, he showed me the NEW letter hidden amongst the old information, and I published it the following day.
I'm disappointed in Andy for telling others that I'd "refused" to publish his letter before finding out from me what was happening.
I'm disappointed in Inside Suffolk for not giving me a chance to respond to a two-month-old allegation, and one that turned out not to be true. You have indicated to me that you want Inside Suffolk to be taken seriously by the Suffolk News-Herald, by the city of Suffolk and by others. This is not the way to accomplish that goal. A serious and responsible journalist would at least have made the call to confirm what he'd heard from Andy.
Considering the loaded word, "refused," which you used in your post, I believe a retraction, if not an apology, is in order.
Res
5 comments:
I can't believe you're getting a lecture about professionalism from the SNH. While IS and its readers sometimes have strong opinions, I have never before heard anyone question its (or Andy's) ethics.
You obviously hit or exposed a nerve. I hope you will not respond in kind to this blatant and obviously bitter tantrum from those from whom so much better should be demanded. Perhaps the SNH has been wounded by having to go "free" to attract/get further readership.
Deperate times at the SNH demands desperate actions. They were at odds with city council and need to mend fences if they are to survive on purely advertisment revenue. Look for them to become Linda Johnson's water carrier and any incumbent seeking re-election next year.
Suffolk is the loser in the SNH decline. For years the SNH had a proud history in our community and was a community leader. It has only been in the last few years (about the time that IS became so active) that the SNH lost virtually all of ots clout and became little more than a publisher of press releases (ala the Cultural Arts Center coverage by Tracey Agnew ad nauseum) stuck between a series of never ending ads that it sometimes "shames" advertisers into using by appealing to pseudo patriotism, back to school safety, and the like. News and accuracy were the first to be lost.
A proud history for what is now just a flier distributor obviously straining to keep publishing what is likely to become fewer times per week for free distribution at grocery stores.
The same happened to our radio station, our downtown movies and bowling alley. They just went with the flow rather than squealing
like a poked pig and demanding "apologies" and "retractions" from City leaders expressing their sadness at seeing the SNH desperate final heart beat.
2:29 how true about the SNH. They failed to evolve and instead threw away talented contributors and employees to maintain the status quo in the good graces of city elders and the GOB network. Now they have been deamonized by the very politicians and insiders they spent decades protecting.
"The Newspaper the Cares About Suffolk" is well down the path towards extinction because they and their parent company failed to do the right thing. I hope there are golden parachutes available for some of the staff. Perhaps they will new employment like applying boots to cars, handing out brochures at the Tourism Office or some other similar overpaid city job for the under-qualified.
The turnover rate at the Sufferin News over the years is a perfect example of those who attempted in not being the sock puppets for those on Market Street and those down at the "corporate" office in Alabama. And you thought the MSM wasnt bias in its reporting *sarc* of Obama and the liberal agenda?
Post a Comment