Reporter's 'notebook' overstepped boundaries
Reporter's 'notebook' overstepped boundaries
EDITOR:
Let me make it clear that I am anything but a supporter of Jim Traficant. He will probably (and correctly) be found guilty of the charges he faces, and it is my hope that he will be given a sentence that will remove him from our midst for as long as possible. He is a major hindrance to progress in our Valley and a king-size embarrassment.
I hope, therefore, that what I'm about to say will be given a bit more credence than if it came from one of the many "my-Jim-right-or-wrong" denizens of this area.
I have a big problem with Vindicator reporter Patricia Meade's Jekyll-and-Hyde act on the front page of your publication. I'm trying to remember a single occasion, in my many years of reading newspapers, of a journalist who ostensibly does straight reporting of a story through the week -- and then suddenly drops all pretense of objectivity on the weekend and overtly editorializes on that same story.
It's not the stance Ms. Meade takes in her pieces I object to (though I think they would be a lot more effective if she chose to wield a needle rather than a sledge hammer). It's that they appear at all. What on earth is to be gained by Ms. Meade delivering her personal opinions on the very story she is allegedly covering objectively -- and on the same front page where that coverage appears every weekday?
When Traficant supporters whine, & quot;Well look at how biased the media are against our Jim! & quot; you'll hardly be able to blame them, will you?
I always thought there was a clear dividing line between reporting the news and commenting upon it. Editorials appeared on the editorial page, and news stories appeared in the rest of the paper. On the rare occasions when reporters editorialized, their remarks were clearly labeled as such (sorry, "Reporter's Notebook" doesn't begin to cut it) -- and also appeared on the editorial page. And I can't ever remember such a piece appearing when the reporter was still actively covering the story it pertains to.
Apparently, I missed the announcement that The Vindicator had been granted an exemption from what is (or ought to be) standard journalistic practice everywhere else.
MICHAEL GREENFIELD
Boardman
Avoiding conflict would have been best choice
EDITOR:
In a letter printed last Sunday, March 17, the writer stated that her sons and a friend were the victims of an attempted assault with a firearm. She goes on to write that the police were no help and even rude. She also says she taught her sons right from wrong.
One of the first things my mother taught me was not to talk to strangers. The three & quot;innocent & quot; boys minding their own business just had to stop and confront two strangers for looking at them. I wonder, if there were 10 people standing together, or if one son had been in the car alone, if the staring would have been an issue.
The fact of the matter is the police have enough trouble dealing with everyday problems in the township, without three teen-agers, looking for a fight, crying to the police when they find the fight, and the person they start the fight with is ready for it.
Furthermore, if the writer had taught her sons the right way to act, she should ask them what they're doing cruising the mall parking lot at 2 a.m. With the prevalence of violence in society today, the right thing to do is walk away from someone who is "staring" at you. Those innocent boys were the ones running their mouths. Maybe she should be thankful her sons did not become another statistic.
Remember, be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.
SHAWN M. MURPHY
Austintown
Israel must protect its people and its existence
EDITOR:
I have supported the president in our war against Islamic terrorism. Yesterday, on TV, I heard our president say that recent (military) actions by Israel in its continuing war against Palestine terrorism were "unhelpful." I wonder what he means by that. It was certainly helpful for Israel who is trying to defend herself. They should be doing more, much more along these lines. Or does he mean that Israel should not be defending herself? Or perhaps he means they should be calibrating their response to whatever in Washington is felt to be the appropriate response.
It is not our teen-agers who are being blown to bits in wars and nightclubs and shopping malls by Palestinian terrorists. It is not our nation that is faced with Yasser Arafat (aka senior Middle Eastern terrorist) and his suicide bombers. I suppose we should not forget Hamas and other terrorist groups not controlled by Arafat that threaten Israel.
It is not our nation that is faced with extinction if the war with Palestinian terrorists is not won. No, it is Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East that must be curtailed in the defense of its nation.
One point of all this is that Arafat always wins. He always wins by increasing the level of violence against Israel and waiting for the United States to prove its "evenhandedness" by telling Israel that she must restrain herself. She must become "helpful," I guess.
My second point is that the conflict in the Middle East is not about boundaries or national states. It is about a 50-year effort of Arabs to destroy Israel. There is no peace process context that can work given the hatred that Palestinians/Arabs have for Israel. It can be put in a more articulate way by citing the noted Arabic scholar, Foud Ajami (referring to the failed Oslo peace plan) "always in the interplay between compromise or reality politics and maximalist claims (extinction of Israel) they (Palestinians-Arabs) invariably come down on the side of the latter." An Israel-Palestinian peace process is simply a way for Israel to negotiate its own extinction.
RICHARD R. THOMPSON
Beaver Falls
Ohio Senate should defeat bad nursing home bill
EDITOR:
Nursing home residents deserve to receive good care, to be treated with dignity and respect. If residents are neglected, abused, injured or otherwise receive poor care, they and their families deserve strong tools, including the right to sue, to hold nursing homes accountable for their actions.
In a misguided attempt to ensure that liability insurance is available and affordable, the Ohio House of Representatives just passed a bill that limits residents' rights. This bill protects poor-performing nursing homes and does nothing to reward good homes. Lawsuits and liability insurance problems are caused by poor care. The solution is improving the quality of care, not taking away residents' rights.
This bad legislation -- Substitute House Bill 412 -- now goes to the Ohio Senate. We urge Ohioans to contact their state senators and encourage them to stop this bill, to protect nursing home residents' rights and to put quality of care first.
BESSIE KING JACKSON
Columbus
X The writer is AARP Ohio state president.