Running article a big mistake
- Top of the page
- Sandra Boudreau
- - March 22, 2012 at 17:28:14
I am writing in response to the article about a sexual victim and I want to make clear it is about a VICTIM. Her past has no place in this story , it should be about the predidator. He sexually assaulted her and was found guilty in a court of law, She should not be treated as the guilty party and needs support not ridicule. I also live in Parrsboro and find it very disturbing that Ross Robinson is still working at the radio station here and it seems to me that if anyone's past should be brought up , it should be his.
- - February 25, 2010 at 00:45:47
Nobel prize controversy and sour grapes is not a new phenomenon.
Frederick Banting and John Macleod shared the award for the discovery of insulin, but Banting refused to share the award, stating that med student Charles Best deserved the award for his contributions and that all MacLeod ever did was allow the Banting-MacLeod pair use his lab.
George Smith receives the award while Eugene Gordon and Mike Tompsett point out that all Smith did was let the pair use his lab.
It's like this folks. If you're a good worker bee and you do a good job its your boss who sits at the board meeting and gets the pat on the back. It's his name on the dotted line and its his name people speak highly of at the annual Christmas party. It's not a mistake to report on differing opinions of the past. It's a responsibility. One way or another, some form of proof will come along that supports one side or another. I speculate, Walt, if this were taking place on the other side of Canada you would not think twice about clicking your tongue and and using it as a point of conversation. That Smith is from Cumberland County we should be proud but it should not be grounds for his absolution from truth.
- - February 25, 2010 at 00:45:31
I would much rather see two sides to every story. Perhaps the timing was bad but it is important to cover all aspects of a story. That way, the readers can derive their own conclusion from it. Having said that, I do question this newspaper's *unbiased* reporting. Examples are recent elections coverage and unnecessary online comment deletions. It seems like the ADN supported Keith Hunter as he garnered way more coverage then the rest of the candidates. And I have posted many comments that were not harmful, slanderous, or injurious to the article. Yet, if it didn't agree with ADN, it didn't get posted. IN MY OPINION as per usual.