Editorializing in news stories is not good
June 23, 2006 Ray Clark wrote:
“After the vote, several attendees at Tuesday night's Council meeting expressed dismay at what appeared to be a blatantly political decision by the three members of the Council. Other than resident Fran Monroe's displeasure with a blog run by Proudian during the recall, no reason for the rejection was given. Cable Committee Chair Brad Fogg has been seeking members for months, and Proudian was, by all accounts, an active and valued part of the team that televises Council meetings and other Town events.”
“Appeared to be a blatantly political decision" followed by ‘no reason for the rejection was given’ means that no one knows why Proudian was rejected. Therefore, Mr. Clark is editorializing. It is his conjecture that the decision was political. And ‘appeared to be’ is non-specific. Appeared to whom? Himself? Editorializing again. Facts should be in an article, not Mr. Clark’s personal perceptions.
“Other than resident Fran Monroe's displeasure with a blog run by Proudian during the recall, no reason for the rejection was given.”
Mr. Clark is incorrect as to procedure. As a resident, Mrs. Monroe cannot give reasons for a rejection, only the council can, because they are the ones voting on it.
Also, no reason for the affirmative vote was given, either. Mr. Clark failed to mention that.
“and Proudian was, by all accounts, an active and valued part of the team…”
If Mr. Fogg was the only person who spoke to Mr. Proudian’s value to the team, how can Mr. Clark report that ‘all accounts’ held him as valuable? Were there other accounts? If so, Mr. Clark should report them. If not, then it is biased to puff something up by using language that makes it seem more than it is.
“After the vote, several attendees at Tuesday night's Council meeting expressed dismay at what appeared to be a blatantly political decision by the three members of the Council. Other than resident Fran Monroe's displeasure with a blog run by Proudian during the recall, no reason for the rejection was given. Cable Committee Chair Brad Fogg has been seeking members for months, and Proudian was, by all accounts, an active and valued part of the team that televises Council meetings and other Town events.”
“Appeared to be a blatantly political decision" followed by ‘no reason for the rejection was given’ means that no one knows why Proudian was rejected. Therefore, Mr. Clark is editorializing. It is his conjecture that the decision was political. And ‘appeared to be’ is non-specific. Appeared to whom? Himself? Editorializing again. Facts should be in an article, not Mr. Clark’s personal perceptions.
“Other than resident Fran Monroe's displeasure with a blog run by Proudian during the recall, no reason for the rejection was given.”
Mr. Clark is incorrect as to procedure. As a resident, Mrs. Monroe cannot give reasons for a rejection, only the council can, because they are the ones voting on it.
Also, no reason for the affirmative vote was given, either. Mr. Clark failed to mention that.
“and Proudian was, by all accounts, an active and valued part of the team…”
If Mr. Fogg was the only person who spoke to Mr. Proudian’s value to the team, how can Mr. Clark report that ‘all accounts’ held him as valuable? Were there other accounts? If so, Mr. Clark should report them. If not, then it is biased to puff something up by using language that makes it seem more than it is.
posted by Gray Maine at
2:19 PM
6 Comments:
This is the essence of the problem with Ray Clark.
Either he thinks it is his domain to editorialize whrever he sees fit, or he is oblivious to the ramnifications of his editorial abuse.
In either case, as you have shown, his words have destroyed the Gray News and invited a competent real newspaper.
Thank you Ray. It is because of your actions that Gray at long last has a good newspaper.
By
Anonymous, at 7:11 PM
Very well said. I agree.
By
Gray Maine, at 7:13 PM
Resign Cluck before you're fired or before you're disgraced into Gray history.
By
Anonymous, at 10:03 PM
You don't think that the Gray News is already disgraced beyond repair? I do.
By
Gray Maine, at 4:47 AM
Ray Clark and Nathan Tsukroff have literally destroyed the Gray News. They have disgraced the Gray News {and themselves}. If, in fact, the paper is under 'new ownership', I hope they distance themselves from Ray & Nathan..these two are NOT journalists; they distort the truth and have NO CREDIBILITY whatsoever!
By
Anonymous, at 7:59 AM
Well, journalistic abuse will do that. People already tend not to trust reporters, it's an industry-wide problem, so I understand. It's incumbent upon all reporters to ensure integrity, when Mr Clark and Mr Tsukroff deliberately throw it away, it doubly damages a newspaper.
By
Gray Maine, at 10:46 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home