I hope to regularly share reader correspondence on this blog. If one reader raises a question, chances are good others feel the same way. Here's an e-mail we received Sunday about Saturday's coverage of Michael Maples' arrest. My response follows.
Comments -- I cringed when I saw the headlines and the pictures this
morning. I was ashamed of my hometown paper. I am an Advocate Subscriber and have been for about 20 years..... I am a supporter of our paper. This story has been covered by our paper up to this point...in a professional way. The items covered were newsworthy and as a reader I needed to know. This last article reminded me of Tabloid coverage. It was awful to see the photo you took. What was the purpose? Why did you feel it was necessary to humiliate this man to this extent. He is already paying the
price for his dishonesty. This last article and very specifically the
picture was a step too far. The advocate has covered all the information
we need to have and can continue to cover information without humiliating
Mr. Maples with that picture and the huge headline you published. It
could have been covered without the extra dramatic effect of a huge
headline and you could have used the file photo if you needed a picture.
It made my heart feel sad that we would do this to a person. Please
consider that we have a wonderful paper that I have always felt proud of.
I did not feel that way today. I discussed this with family and friends
and they were also taken aback at the extent to which the Advocate
went....to sell papers.
- 2 unverified comments
Thank you for your contribution.Flag this as inappropriate
- Follow ChrisCobler