A letter to the Editor of the Eastwick Press:
I wish to express my strong concerns as to the journalist standards observed by Mr. Kramer in his article on the Grafton Town Board meeting of late. While correctly reporting on some of the substance of the meeting, this article is filled with numerous instances of personnel reflections on what should or should not have taken place, as well as criticism of the actions of the board. These reflections and criticisms have no place in the body of an article that purports to be an accurate description of the meeting. And this is not the first time I have found fault with Mr. Kramer’s reporting. He has a propensity to editorialize throughout his articles.
I am aware that colorful writing helps sell newspapers. But he is also planting his opinion on what is right and wrong in the minds of people who read this, and encourages people to form their opinions not on the facts, but on his personnel observations and thoughts. This fly’s in the face of what journalism is all about.
As the editor of the Eastwick Press, Mr. Kramer has within his power the appropriate venue in which to express his thoughts. It is called an editorial. A separate column from the news report, in which Mr. Kramer can freely express his opinions. In this case he is functioning as a commentator and not a reporter. I would hope that in the future, Mr. Kramer can separate the two.
In the interest of transparency I must identify the fact that I am a member of the Grafton Town Democratic Committee. But my political views have no bearing on my criticism. I am appalled at what I feel is a disservice to the people of Grafton, based on my own journalist education and experience. As a 15 year veteran of broadcast journalism and a writer for the Associated Press, I feel very qualified to criticize Mr. Kramer’s standards and hope he uses more sound journalistic principles in his future reports.
Thank you,
Doug La Rocque
Grafton.
Editor/Reporter’s response: Mr. La Rocque’s comments are typical of those folks who have read something they thoroughly disagree with – they almost always give their bona fides for being the judge of what is good journalism and what is bad – as if they had just descended the Mount with the One True Word. I’d like our readers to know that there are schools of journalistic thought that hold the opposite view to Mr. La Rocque’s. His lack of specifics in criticizing the story leads me to believe that there are less opinions and more facts in it than he is willing to admit to.