“If you don’t like my opinion, tough shit.”
This letter to the editor really hit home. There is only a few journalists I trust at the newspaper to get it right and even then you are walking a tight rope, because even if they get it right, the editor may twist the story to sway public opinion. And I have seen this a lot at the Argus Endorser ever since Mr. Beck took the helm;
I would think before publishing an article on a business, you would contact the business owners to get correct information to produce the true story.
I am the owner of Baltic Corner. I never was contacted for the Dec. 26 article Argus Leader reporter Peter Harriman wrote about the smoking ban, which included false information about my business.
In defense of Mr. Harriman, like I said above, he may not have had editorial control. This story may be a case of letting out the boogie man about the smoking ban. There is no boogie man, it’s a good thing for the state and the increased revenue at bar/restaurants will offset revenue lost in dive bars and VL casinos. We have nothing to worry about, but let’s stir the pot anyway;
It was appalling to receive phone calls Sunday morning about your article falsely representing our establishment and our views.
I also have experience with this. I had a quote once that was the exact opposite of what I had said, even though it was verified on phone and email. Gee, wonder how that happened? Incompetence? Doubtful. The AL needs to realize they cannot constantly change public opinion. If people want snow gates and say they work, report it. If bar owners like the smoking ban, report it. The editorial board and it’s editors need to stop twisting stories that influence public opinion. Seriously. Nobody fucking cares about your opinion. Really we don’t. Report the news, as is.
I would also like to add, I am an editorialist. I charge nothing for people come here, and they don’t have to believe me, and alot don’t. No secrets. The 4th estate’s job is to reveal the truth, not sugar coat it.
I’ve been misquoted numerous times, but the worst was when I was contacted about my opinions about the Pavilion. NOTHING I said was quoted even remotely similar to what I said.
I feel sad for people who exercise blind faith in what they read or hear. To the extent things I personally know about get reported, they are a very loose fragment of the truth surrounded by assumptions or lies. But that’s just life. Through inadvertence, or devious motives, or whatever … things get filtered and re-told through the prism of the reporter — whether that reporter is a journalist or just an everyday person passing along information.
“I feel sad for people who exercise blind faith in what they read or hear.”
That is the crux of it to. People often fail to inform themselves.
I had a quote once that was the exact opposite of what I had said, even though it was verified on phone and email. Gee, wonder how that happened?
~l3wis
I had a similar experience. It was the mid seventies. I was “interviewed” by Argus sports reporter Mel Antonen. Though the words were correct, what was printed were words and selected sentences taken completely out of context. Made the story a complete 180 of what I felt and experienced. I guess Mel thought taking my words out of context made for a more sensationalized story. I remember the name of this guy to this day for what he hacked into that “story”. Never did talk to him again.
Same wth the LTE business. Had one published in about 1990. Back then I had a land line with that number in the phone book, and having that and your full name attached to a LTE was not a good thing as it turned out. I had no idea there were people out there who hated unions to the degree they did to make threatening phone calls in a drunken stupor after midnight. That’s why I prefer to be Anon to this day.
This LTE was based on one sentence in a large story on the smoking ban. The quote about the Baltic Corner was a personal experience from a patron of the bar. Yes, it would have been best to try to reconcile the quote with the bar owner. But there’s no evidence that Peter Harriman or any other person at the paper was editorializing about the ban itself or trying deliberately to hurt the bar owners. More likely that the AL is chronically short-staffed these days and articles just aren’t as thoroughly researched/sourced as they used to be. Sad but true in this day and age. Wild conspiracy theories are just more entertaining than giving the benefit of the doubt, I suppose.
“More likely that the AL is chronically short-staffed these days and articles just aren’t as thoroughly researched/sourced as they used to be. ”
While this may be true, as Jack Billion pointed out in our last Podcast when I said the same thing, “That’s no excuse.” And he is right.