The Union is getting around to reporting about its own failings — much of it coming from the newspaper’s publisher/editor himself — in reporting and editorializing about the proposed high-school district teacher furloughs.
I called it a “bull in a china shop” approach.
• “Does teacher’s flap with The Union show a publisher that is ‘stale in the saddle’? is here.
•”How The Union’s “bull in china shop” approach offended teachers amid furlough negotiations is here.
•”Mixing news and opinion (again) at The Union is here.
•”Why teachers oppose proposed school cuts” is here.
The Union wrote this morning: “Drew also addressed editorials about the furlough negotiations published in The Union over the past few weeks.”
“It’s really, really unfortunate that some of those things were brought out about the teachers,’ he said.”
No kidding. How come the paper didn’t come out and report what Drew said on this blog: “Thanks Jeff for being an understanding journalist — there’s hope”? Or just apologize? Instead it wrote another “in your face” editorial.
As I wrote the first time: “A community newspaper plays an instrumental role in providing information to a community, as well as building credibility and trust. Providing only one side and showing personal biases only serves to polarize the debate, not bring about collaboration. Running a ‘poll’ on the front page of theunion.com for weeks that supposedly shows people ‘favoring’ the furloughs doesn’t seem constructive either. Most of all, it doesn’t seem to working, does it? Maybe it’s time for a fresh approach.”
Let’s hope for a fresh approach going forward.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »