This morning I did something that I've never done... a crossing of the line.
I've been writing letters to the Editor for a long time. It started during my first term where I would write about legislation, and the statehouse. Over time I've moved into other venues: business, trade, history, etc. including doing this blog which, content wise, often gets sent into editors across New Hampshire.
Though of this and the line I crossed today was that I've never attacked, criticized or questioned the policy of a respective newspaper and/or it's editor. I've looked at issues like politics that are covered by the newspaper and added my own opinion(s), but I've never directly attacked the policy of the newspaper to do what it does.
Today I did just this. I sent in a letter to the Editor of the Vermont based Caledonian Record newspaper calling them a public relations appendage of the Balsams Bailout proposal d/b/a Dixville Capital LLC.
I'm really glad that I did this.
Journalists are supposed to be objective and cover both sides of an issue. And if they can't cover both sides of the issue they need to state this: "phone contacts for comment were not returned." (example).
So let's move on.
The big question(s) now for me is how the Caledonian Record newspaper will respond to what I've poised against them, or, another way to look at this: challenged their authority to do what they do. Here are my ideas:
A. Refuse To Print The Letter.
B. Print The Letter And Do Nothing Else.
C. Print The Letter And The Editor Will Respond To What I've Said.
D. Print The Letter And Both The Editor and Reporter Will Respond To What I've Said.
E. Print The Letter And Then Do What They Are Supposed To Do: Cover Both Sides of The Issue.
Do you have any ideas of what may happen here?
I don't have idea(s) as to how they will respond. But I'm leaning to B. This week should be most interesting and I'll be reporting what I find out. A copy of the letter is below 'media as biased influence.'