Thu 20 Jan 2005
A perfect illustration of the Post-Standard’s inadequate coverage of Dr. Dhafir’s trial
Posted by k under Democracy , Katherine's Writing , Media/Judge letters[2] Comments
This letter was sent to the Post-Standard on January, 20th in response to Richard Lindsay’s letter:
The Jan. 20 letter of Richard Lindsay is a perfect illustration of the difficulty I have with the Post-Standard’s coverage. His letter is a perfect imitation of most of the Post-Standard articles I have read on the trial.
The letter begins with a headline assertion that is not substantiated by any evidence, “Dhafir trial coverage fair and balanced”. However, it is not until paragraph three that we find out that Mr. Lindsay has not witnessed even five minutes of the proceedings. He states, “Although not attending the trial, I have read all the reports on the proceedings since October, and disagree completely with Ms. Hughes, finding the reporting fair and balanced.”
Mr. Lindsay has no basis of fact from which to agree or disagree with me. That he can’t see this might be a consequence of reading the Post-Standard for too long.
I rest my case.
January 21st, 2005 at 9:58 pm
I agree with your assessment. How can he determine the balance of reporting on an event he has not attended? I live in Oneida. My mother is a physician, and I am certainly acquainted with Dr Dhafir. I have been keeping close track of this, as close as I can. I will be at the trial at some point.
January 22nd, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Your writing is moving and reads like truth—unlike Mr. Lindsay’s, as you pointed out. I admire you for doing what you’re doing; thank you, and keep shining the light of truth wherever it is threatened—as it certainly is in this case.