I sent an email to Sound Publishing this morning pointing them to this blog and also referencing Port O Call as both being far more timely and relevant sources of info and asked them to please take a good hard look at their local outfit here.
So, just in case anyone from Sound Publishing does manage to wander over this way, let's present them with a hypothetical look at a hypothetical reporter on a hypothetical newspaper, and see if they think everything is up to muster...
Let's call this imaginary newspaper the, hmmm, Coastal Daily News, okay? And let's say they've employed a certain reporter for a long, long time, right? Let's say this reporter's name is, oh, let's call him Gaul Potleaf.
Let's say this reporter, Mr. Potleaf, who, as a reporter, is not only is supposed to represent all sorts of journalistic standards and ideals, but is also very much the public face of the Coastal Daily News in the community. He covers all sorts of government meetings, and things of that sort, involving the expenditure of public funds, various local affairs, and various law and order issues in the community.
And let's say he covers that last one from the inside, if you will, by getting arrested for being drunk and/or high and disorderly in public. Would the public still be expected to have faith in that reporter and his journalistic abilities? Would management?
Upping the ante a bit, let's say that the next big (personal) law and order issue involving this reporter was his hitting a pedestrian with his car while driving. Given his "in" with local government, would the public be right to be suspicious over the fact that he was never given a sobriety test by the police, even though they knew of his past indiscretions? Would it be understandable to think that the public might have further doubts about this reporter's stability and reliability given the totality of the circumstances? Might it also be understandable that this might raise concerns of a collusion between certain local governing bodies and the press that is supposed to watch over them?
Speaking of watching over...Let's say this reporter also had, as one of his duties, the processing of letters to the editor. And let's say that this reporter went well beyond verifying the names and identity of those sending in said letters, to the extent that he also was extremely well known for bullying and harassing people who had sent letters in if the ideological content didn't match some (unstated-but-oh-so-clearly-there) standard that only Mr. Potleaf seemed to know in detail. Would it be safe to say that this ongoing pattern of badgering, bullying and belittling members of the public would, in fact, fall far outside the scope of duty involved with verifying letters to the editor? Would management feel this way?
And speaking of management...How would management feel if, say a reporter like our hypothetical Gaul Potleaf, were to have gotten a much younger intern pregnant? An intern he was supposed to be, in a different manner entirely, supervising? Would management see such an impregnation as proper "supervisory" activity? Would management think such behavior was a fine thing for the workplace? Would they view such an unintended pregnancy as a sort of "bonus"? Would they be concerned if the pregnant woman in question then quit the paper due to the stress of the situation?
Now, I realize that all these "hypotheticals" presented here are a lot to take in. And it's difficult to believe that a newspaper would still employ a drug-addled, morally bankrupt and fact unfriendly person like that after all these questionable activities...Or is it?