THURSDAY’S LETTERS: Hearst/MediaNews Settlement, D.C. Madam’s List, Walter Reed Hospital

RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
Visit Us
LinkedIn

By: E&P Staff

In today’s letters, a thought on news organizations’ decision not to publish the D.C. Madam’s client list, a reader says that the Walter Reed Hospital is not “aging” as it was described by the AP, and a comment on the Hearst/MediaNews antitrust settlement.

***

Editors Hypocritical for Not Publishing D.C. Madam’s List?

I just read your article on the D.C. Madam and had to tell you the hypocrisy of the editors and management of the newspapers is nothing short of astounding!

They urge caution: we cannot publish a list of politicians who patronized a whore house. We must review, we must check to see who is on it and if they will suffer harm if we publish their names, on and on ad nauseum.

However, those very same editors feel no compunction whatsoever in publishing the names of honest, law-abiding, private citizens who happen to have a [carrying a concealed weapon violation]. And they wonder why subscription numbers are down, the idiots. We are on to them and their lies, their perverted desires to push their own political agendas instead of reporting the news. What a bunch of clueless morons.

Bill von Besser

***

Walter Reed Not ‘Aging’

Robert Burns, the AP Military writer has just printed a story that Defense Sec. Gates supports closing the “aging” facility. It is hardly “aging-” a billion dollars was spent to rebuild and renovate it within the last 25 years. If he wishes to argue that taxpayer money has been yet again wasted, that may be true, but he could at least have visited the facility.

Robert Tartell
Houston, Texas


***

On the Hearst/MediNews Settlement

Thanks for your good piece on the settlement of the antitrust suit involving MediaNews and Hearst. May I suggest a further step:

Demand all 3 parties to disclose the settlement agreement–and if they refuse, make them explain why it must be “confidential.”

Ask Reilly and Alioto how much they are being paid — including “attorney’s fees” — by the publishers as part of the settlement. If they refuse to disclose, why? This is a huge hole in all news accounts I’ve seen about this settlement. For all that the readers know, no money has changed hands, when in fact the amount of that payment is likely the very essence of the settlement.

Instead of “he said/she said” reporting about what the parties contend the settlement really means, the press should have the actual document so that the press can report it and interpret it for readers.

Peter Scheer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *