I have had some experience working with community newspapers in Dorchester Massachusetts, Long Beach and the greater Los Angeles area in California, and Oklahoma City. I have also had healthy relationships with mainstream and alternate newspapers. Each had as its commitment to the communities to present the news, things the readers may not have known about, or more details about those things they had some knowledge of.

But, until a recent interaction with the local newspaper on the south coast of Massachusetts, I was not aware of, nor can I actually accept, the idea that a newspaper’s job was to simply repeat what readers knew or what they would find comfortable hearing and continue believing. And, what I experienced for the first time and so brazenly, at least, was that the newspaper made no attempt to hide this idea, a conflict of interest with their purpose.

As I was told concerning a letter I wrote that could potentially present new information citizens who are voters and taxpayers might need to know about the Bristol County Sheriff,

“you might think of writing a letter that sticks just to facts that are well known in the public domain and make your points that way.”

A few weeks ago, after the local newspaper published a story about the county sheriff that presented him as a man with a large heart and the best interest of his inmates as his priority, a gentleman with whom I am acquainted, a man who sees many problems with the sheriff and conditions at his jail, wrote a letter to the editor contradicting some of the details in the article.

As good as the article made the county jail look, there are problems such as it having the highest rate of suicides of the any of the state’s county jails even though it is not the largest, not sufficiently addressing mental health, serving minimally nutritious meals, misusing solitary confinement for reasons other than its intended purpose, among them the improper placement of people with a court acknowledged possibility to attempt suicide and as punishment for inmates the guards and sheriff would prefer not to have to deal with, and claiming to have programs for inmates that in actuality are merely on paper.

Although letters to the editor are the signed opinions of the writer, not the newspaper, and are subject to rebuttal, the letter writer was informed that before the letter could be published, each alleged charge would need to be supported by verified sources.

To meet that requirement, the writer supplied reports, documents, statistics from reputable people and organizations, including state studies, law suits by inmate legal advocacy groups and individuals, and articles published in the paper by its own reporters.

When each request for a source was met, the editor requested more.

Finally the letter was published, and within a very short period of time, a letter was published allegedly written by the sheriff, who has a spokesperson who usually writes such things, simply claiming that letter was wrong with nothing cited to refute the letter’s claims.

A short time later a second letter was submitted by another writer that refuted the sheriff’s letter and the unspecified claims that the first letter was purely political.

This person was also required to supply source materials before his letter could be published with some of his citations rejected because, although some were the same references submitted by the first letter writer because they had both mentioned similar things, the letter writer was informed he could not use those, but needed to come up with entirely new citations.

This letter was never published in spite of the time and the effort it took to satisfactorily meet the editor’s demands.

After listening to the sheriff declare on a local talk radio station that he would not agree to an independent, third party evaluation of his jails to prove or disprove those deficiencies being claimed by people as he would not play that political game, I wrote a letter because what I and others wanted was that the sheriff and his jails be evaluated by neutral third parties as I and others who are making claims about the suicide and recidivism rates, the abusive conditions, and the lack of decent food and health care could be proven to correct when it came to the sheriff  and his jail, or he proven right if that were the case.

It would remove the “he said, she said” back and forth.

In letter to the newspaper prior to my submission the sheriff also claimed that anyone questioning him and wanting a neutral, independent evaluation was being political,

Introduction: Men face many sexual issues levitra 10 mg and lose confidence in sex. It is viagra for sale online absorbed that when a man has lack of orgasm during pleasurable stimulation. The answer get cialis online isn’t always a female enhancer alternative. Vascular disease is yet another cialis tadalafil problem which many smokers experience during their lifetime. To me, if you have nothing to hide nothing would be better than having such an evaluation that could prove the sheriff was right and those who automatically opposed him wrong.

My letter expressed that sentiment.

The editor replied to my submission by informing me that the “Standard-Times policy is that writers must provide documentation of all claims in their letters”, and this “documentation must be from a reputable source, e.g., a mainstream newspaper or magazine; a government, nonprofit or business study. This applies even if the documentation is from this newspaper.”

He supplied a copy of my letter with those things for which he wanted documentation highlighted.

Upon submitting the documentation from reputable sources some of which had been acceptable when submitted by the writer of the first letter making the same claims I referred to, I received the reply that the main problem was with my assertion that the sheriff was a white supremacist, and that, in spite of supporting documentation having been supplied by an earlier letter writer, in my case “It is not sufficient,” and I would “have to have more documentation than that he has associated with groups that have been called white supremacist by the Southern Poverty Law Center (and others) to label him personally a white supremacist. You would need to have something he himself has said.“

The first letter writer had been supported in his white supremacist claim by documentation that revealed the sheriff’s participation at a dinner meetings with the League of the South-connected sheriff Larry Page and his involvement with FAIR an anti-immigrant group that spreads false information. The groups cited as those being knowledgeable about the white supremacist leanings of these groups with which the sheriff is associated are the Southern Poverty Law Center, Center for New Community, ADL, Rightwing Watch, and others with the ADL and the SPLC being especially knowledgeable when it comes to white supremacy.

While I was reminded that, “We’ve published any number of letters on this topic for people who have provided documentation,” he was rejecting that very same documentation, claiming it was insufficient.

Every request for documentation that was met, regardless how many, was followed by additional requests so the practice began to take on the appearance of the Wizard of Oz making an additional requirement each time Dorothy met the previous one.

Upon checking with the two previous letter writers, I found they too had been subjected to the endless request for documentation and had, like me, even included articles from that very newspaper that were somehow found to be insufficient.

I also discovered that in one letter to the editor credited to the sheriff, and what could have been used to show he is equally required to document claims, the sheriff attempted to argue his having a lower suicide rate and percentage than people were claiming by citing a study dealing with county suicide rates state-wide and not specific to county jails. While he basically dared anyone to go to that study, it was clear he was sure that no one would, and it was equally clear that while subjecting those who write unfavorably about him, the newspaper had not bothered to check his alleged documentation or it would have seen it was a prime example of an insufficient citation.

So while the common citizen is required to supply an endless stream of documentation, perhaps in the hopes the letter writer will just throw up his or her arms in frustration and tell the editor to forget it, the sheriff’s spokesperson has free rein to say whatever is favorable about the sheriff by fiat without supporting documentation as many favorable claims are contrary  to “a reputable source, e.g., a mainstream newspaper or magazine; a government, nonprofit or business study” and recorded statements easily reviewed on the internet.

When it comes to statements by the sheriff the practice seems to be that because he said it, it must be true.

There has to be a reason for this. There has to be a reason why, in spite of the studies, statistics, law suits, and reports, the only articles appearing in the local paper are favorable, if not acts of worship.

And there is.

The sheriff’s spokesperson, responsible for statements by, and press releases and articles about the sheriff, has among his credits touted by the local paper his being a contributing writer to that newspaper.

The sheriff’s spokesperson is employed by the newspaper which goes a long way in explaining why the articles about the sheriff that are routinely published are paeans to him while those who criticize him are potentially beaten into silence by the never ending and near impossible requirements to substantiate every claim while the articles about how good the sheriff is have no substantiation requirements.

No conflict of interest there.