The Day Explains Itself


Recently the New London Day has been barraged with letters taking it to task for printing all the facts about a recent auto accident involving several fatalities. Some readers apparently felt it was inappropriate for the Day to mention that the teenage driver of one car was driving illegally. I won't go into the reasons readers complained. I didn't read the letters, and I'm certainly not going to go to the trouble of doing so. I have quite enough trouble trying to digest the irrationality coming out of Washington. I don't need the home grown variety for dessert.

Nonetheless, I write to defend the readers. They have every right to expect the Day to shield them from unpleasant facts, something the Day has done for them for years. A person who got his or her news solely from the Day would be blissfully unaware, for instance, that the Senator they voted for at the Day's suggestion has gone back on his campaign promise to investigate the Katrina fiasco, not to mention his assertion that it was unnecessary to send additional troops to Iraq (I could go on, but the horse is dead).

Of course it's not only about Joe. For years the Day kept that same reader similarly unaware of Rob Simmons voting record and, right at this very instant,that same reader is, at best, but dimly aware of the approaching war with Iran. It is also my understanding, from very reliable sources, that the Day felt it to be its duty to shield the people of New London County from its knowledge that Joe Gentile was a scam artist, until something went wrong at the very last minute.

It stands to reason, then, that the Day's readers should be offended when the paper has the effrontery to rub their noses in unpleasant facts. They just aren't used to it. Needless to say the Day, through the person of its executive editor, Lance Johnson, felt it necessary to explain or justify this startling breach of journalistic ethics.

Mr. Johnson certainly had an obligation to account for his paper's actions. I haven't bothered to actually read his column, because that's not important. The point is, he disappointed his readers and they have a right to an explanation. When a newspaper does something as absurd as report the facts, complaining readers should be assuaged. As to those who complain when the Day fails to report the facts (e.g., see Lieberman, Joe, above), that's a different story. Such troublemakers deserve only the brush-off, and believe me that's all they get. You won't catch Mr. Johnson explaining the Day's actions to them.

Posted: Friday - February 02, 2007 at 06:47 PM          

©