|
|
|
Editor’s note: It is the general policy of this newspaper not to post letters to the editor in our online edition. However, with the overwhelming amount of responses we’ve had to this particular issue, we felt it is appropriate to place it on our website.
Is newspaper retaliating, being defensive
Dear editor:
On Dec 22, the editorial staff of this paper printed a scathing attack on me, my professional ethics and my actions in helping Honesdale Borough survive its recent financial crisis. While there’s really nothing to defend, I posted an online response pointing out the paper’s gross errors and stating that they had totally misrepresented my Borough consulting role.
In the Dec 24 print version of the paper, Mr. Michael O’Day (Honesdale Borough Council President) corroborated my position by stating that my reporting was “indeed accurate with regard to the facts and the motives of the council.” He went on to adamantly disagree with the paper’s editorial attack on me citing my background as an expert in crisis management and stating that I had not overstepped the bounds of my Borough engagement. The paper again chose the low road by continuing their "selective" coverage, not apologizing and not carrying any of this on-line.
This raises a fundamental question. Why would the Wayne Independent feel the need to print an attack article that was loaded with falsehoods and innuendo of vague misdeeds and criminal violations? One on-line poster had this to say:
“It is odd that the paper would go out of its way to attack Mr. Lawrence. This editorial clearly tries to implicate him in illegal acts using innuendo. Not the first time this paper has used this tactic which was the point of Mr. Lawrence's [Letter] in the first place”. Further, it is this paper’s selective reporting that appears to have led to the animosity from many of the council members; and now they seem surprised when they stop talking to them.”
Could the paper be retaliating for my publicly demonstrating that it hadn't fully or accurately reported the real story concerning the community’s financial crisis? It’s quite obvious that this paper doesn't like the current council, but is it also possible that by mere association, anyone working with the council is automatically assumed guilty of alleged improprieties and illegal acts?
The WI has said “This entire episode is simply another smoke and mirrors show, this time by the 'volunteer'...” Consider that I have yet to be contacted to explain any facts I've reported. Apparently, the paper believes their slanted opinions and attempts at character assignation should be accepted automatically by their readers as fact. It should be obvious to those truly familiar with this situation that I did nothing wrong other than dare to question the paper’s biased reporting.
In my opinion, this paper should not be allowed to get away with using their considerable power to publicly abuse those who have done nothing wrong, but disagree with the quality of their reporting and their highly questionable tactics. The people of Honesdale deserve better, (much better). Bottom line, it’s high time this form of journalistic vendetta was brought into view and questioned by readers.
Stephen Lawrence
Editor’s note: It is the general policy of this newspaper not to post letters to the editor in our online edition. However, with the overwhelming amount of responses we’ve had to this particular issue, we felt it is appropriate to place it on our website.
Is newspaper retaliating, being defensive
Dear editor:
On Dec 22, the editorial staff of this paper printed a scathing attack on me, my professional ethics and my actions in helping Honesdale Borough survive its recent financial crisis. While there’s really nothing to defend, I posted an online response pointing out the paper’s gross errors and stating that they had totally misrepresented my Borough consulting role.
In the Dec 24 print version of the paper, Mr. Michael O’Day (Honesdale Borough Council President) corroborated my position by stating that my reporting was “indeed accurate with regard to the facts and the motives of the council.” He went on to adamantly disagree with the paper’s editorial attack on me citing my background as an expert in crisis management and stating that I had not overstepped the bounds of my Borough engagement. The paper again chose the low road by continuing their "selective" coverage, not apologizing and not carrying any of this on-line.
This raises a fundamental question. Why would the Wayne Independent feel the need to print an attack article that was loaded with falsehoods and innuendo of vague misdeeds and criminal violations? One on-line poster had this to say:
“It is odd that the paper would go out of its way to attack Mr. Lawrence. This editorial clearly tries to implicate him in illegal acts using innuendo. Not the first time this paper has used this tactic which was the point of Mr. Lawrence's [Letter] in the first place”. Further, it is this paper’s selective reporting that appears to have led to the animosity from many of the council members; and now they seem surprised when they stop talking to them.”
Could the paper be retaliating for my publicly demonstrating that it hadn't fully or accurately reported the real story concerning the community’s financial crisis? It’s quite obvious that this paper doesn't like the current council, but is it also possible that by mere association, anyone working with the council is automatically assumed guilty of alleged improprieties and illegal acts?
The WI has said “This entire episode is simply another smoke and mirrors show, this time by the 'volunteer'...” Consider that I have yet to be contacted to explain any facts I've reported. Apparently, the paper believes their slanted opinions and attempts at character assignation should be accepted automatically by their readers as fact. It should be obvious to those truly familiar with this situation that I did nothing wrong other than dare to question the paper’s biased reporting.
In my opinion, this paper should not be allowed to get away with using their considerable power to publicly abuse those who have done nothing wrong, but disagree with the quality of their reporting and their highly questionable tactics. The people of Honesdale deserve better, (much better). Bottom line, it’s high time this form of journalistic vendetta was brought into view and questioned by readers.
Stephen Lawrence
