Uniden­ti­fied sources not found in cred­i­ble news­pa­pers

Rappahannock News - - EVENTS - ROBERT BUR­NEY

On Thurs­day, you pub­lished a too-long op-ed by an uniden­ti­fied "Repub­li­can Op­er­a­tive" un­der the guise of a news ar­ti­cle. This was not news. It read like a stream-of­con­scious­ness novel, with no log­i­cal flow of ideas, no anal­y­sis, and few facts. There were un­founded ac­cu­sa­tions and in­nu­en­does that were re­peated through the ar­ti­cle, but no re­but­tal, and no bal­anced view­point.

No cred­i­ble news­pa­per would pub­lish an ar­ti­cle from an uniden­ti­fied source. Re­spon­si­ble pa­pers strive to keep their news re­port­ing with­out bias and save opin­ions for the ed­i­to­rial pages. Sev­eral years ago, a me­dia panel was asked for sources where Amer­i­cans could go for un­bi­ased news. They named the Wash­ing­ton Post, The New York Times, and the Chicago Tri­bune. Oth­ers, such as the Wall Street Jour­nal and the Chris­tian Sci­ence Mon­i­tor were re­jected, be­cause the own­ers in­flu­enced the con­tent of the news. As the sin­gle lo­cal news­pa­per, I be­lieve you have a spe­cial obli­ga­tion to re­main above the fray of par­ti­san pol­i­tics, and I am pro­foundly dis­ap­pointed to find that you fail to meet this stan­dard.

Fifth Dis­trict Demo­cratic Con­gres­sional can­di­date Les­lie Cock­burn

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.