Critique of Cameron Bonner's Letter

Now, was this really necessary? Ron Bonner is, from everything I know about him, intelligent enough to know that the gentleman whom he accuses of "posing as a reporter" is, in fact, an experienced journalist. This type of lashing out is simply petty and unworthy of Mr. Bonner. Frankly, I'm surprised that someone like him would stoop to this kind of childishness.

Since he has, however, I don't see any choice but to point out that this diatribe "posing" as a Letter to the Editor is utter nonsense.

The history of American journalism is one of men (and later women) of courage taking a stand for what they believe. The idea of "unbiased" journalism is one that is relatively new. One of the most famous early American journalists was Peter Zenger, publisher of the New York Weekly Journal. Zenger was tried for libel against the British Crown in 1735 and his printing press was burned.

Benjamin Franklin published both his Poor Richard's Almanac and wrote for his brother James' newspaper under the pen name Silence Dogood. James Franklin's newspaper was entitled the New England Courant and was anything but unbiased. Franklin made no secret of his support for various political causes and openly and unashamedly used the Courant to promote those causes. Benjamin Franklin himself later published the Pennsylvania Gazette in Philadelphia, another politically oriented newspaper.

Of the roughly 234 newspapers published in the United States in 1800, all had a strong tendency to favor one political viewpoint or another. Many American papers were named "Democrat" or "Republican" or "Federalist" because of their open support for the political parties of the same name.

Beginning her career in 1880, reporter Elizabeth Cochrane (writing under the pen name "Nellie Bly") actively sought out stories about women's issues and used them to promote the plight of women, especially those who were impoverished.

Examples of journalists taking a stand abound and there is nothing wrong with a journalist recognizing the signs that one side in a public dispute is clearly in the right. After all, we expect our journalists to be intelligent and insightful. If they weren't, how could we trust the information they pass on to us?

In fact, one seldom sees liberals complaining when journalistic bias supports their own cherished causes. One recent case in point being Dan Rather's shoddy promotion of counterfeit documents purporting to prove that President Bush did not fulfill his duties as a member of the Air National Guard. Where was Mr. Bonner's outrage at Mr. Rather's "unprofessionalism"?

No, the problem with journalism is not bias. It's not even the fact that over 80% of American journalists are avowed liberals by their own admission, skewed as this makes reporting in this country. The problem arises when clear biases influence reporting and journalists try to hide the fact of their personal political leanings from their readers. The American people are intelligent and can separate fact from opinion in articles in which the bias is not hidden. When a reporter claims to be unbiased when, in fact, he or she is not, that is the worst sort of dishonesty, a fraud perpetrated upon one's audience.

As to Mr. Bonner's claims that Mr. Wood is not a "skilled" journalist based on his "applauding along with a faction in the audience that was voicing strongly partisan political points of view," I would just point out to Mr. Bonner that one's skill as a journalist lies in one's ability to interview, to ascertain facts, to investigate and, finally, to aggregate all the information thus gained into one cohesive, well written article. As Mr. Wood's article and Mr. Bonner's letter appeared in the same issue of the Press, I would submit that Mr. Bonner (having obviously not yet read the article in question) had no basis for making any sort of judgment as to Mr. Wood's skills and his criticism has no foundation whatsoever.

What Mr. Bonner's letter comes down to is yet another attempt at censorship by those feverishly promoting the (not unbiased) agenda of the Town Board. First came censorship of our Freedom of Speech on February 1 and subsequent Town Board Meetings. Now, they are attempting to throttle Freedom of the Press. What will we experience next, Town Board resolutions ruling Sunday Sermons out of order?

We can only hope they stop their campaign against the First Amendment with the Freedoms of Speech and the Press and leave Religion alone. If we're lucky, they'll decide that two out of three ain't bad.