Something isn't right over at the Daily Chronicle. That doesn't come as a surprise to many people. After publishing two stories about Alderman Wogen - the first on his arrest (notice how the comments section is missing below the article) and the second on his current living situation (that has probably been going on longer than five weeks), they write and print an editorial that defends the hack. Can someone please explain how this makes sense? So, it's alright for them to use Wogen's problems to sell papers (yes, they used him as filler - crime and scandal are easy to report on), but it's wrong for anyone in the community-at-large to be concerned about his behavior?
2 comments:
I was one of those who used to trust the Chronicle to deliver us the unbiased stories of this community. I had always thought that a newspapers job was to keep us informed. They are entitled to an opinion but their support of Wogen is way out of bounds. The residency issue is only the tip of the iceberg. I for one would have hoped that they would have done their job as a newspaper and informed the community on all aspects of Wogens dealings. It's just a matter of time before they have the egg all over their face for backing up this jerk.
My letter to the Chronicle complained about both the editorial and about the coverage. In sending it I found out that the decision-makers for each are different. So I think on one level you can separate out distinct problems, for the former primarily an ivory tower syndrome and for the latter a lack of a proper mission, reality check and/or guts.
If the editorial board is separate from the news staff for the sake of unbiased opinions, they should also refrain from sitting on local boards for the same reason, or at least disclose their affiliations in each editorial.
I've worked for a few newspapers in my day. Managing and other editors often wrote editorials but they put their names on them.
Post a Comment