The Herald article

Earlier, I wrote about an interview with other candidates at the offices of "The Smithfield Herald". Last Friday's newspaper had the coverage of the interviews. In the interest of fairness, let me say that so far, I have been happy with the way I have been treated by The Herald staff in regards to the upcoming election thus far. I do not subscribe to that paper, since they still owe my wife money for delivering their paper several years ago and steadfastly refuse to pay her the remainder of the sum she is due. For that reason, we don't subscribe to their publication. When they pay us the money owed, we will sign up for a subscription that very day. It seems to be bad business to cheese someone off and lose a long term subscription. For the money they owe us, they would have made it back many times over in our subscription fees and advertising revenue.

I did pick up a copy of Friday's "Herald" to see if the write-up on the interview was there, and it was. Though I was accurately quoted with the minor exception of exact verbiage at one point, I do wish that there was more context in which to comprehend what was said and why. I do realize that for the sake of brevity, they must edit down content.

One thing that only those in the room knew is that one of the candidates did not even take the time to show up to the interview session. Yet, he has a full write up just as the rest of us did as if he were present. That bothers me a tiny little bit, but I can live with that idea. As a matter of fact, I was the only one of the four candidates that arrived on time for the meeting. The other two arrived late, but at least they took the time to show up. Jackie showed up just eight minutes late and Debbie Johnson showed up nearly an hour late, but at least she took the time to come out.

There were a few issues that were discussed that were not fully covered in the article, but again, I understand the idea of editing for content and space. There was one line of questioning that led to answers that I wish could have been further expounded upon in the paper. They were discussed at length in the interview. That would have shown how coherent I was actually being at the time rather than snippets. The topics covered, such as the discussions pertaining to borrowing money, expansion of town services, and working to solve our crime problem were in the article. There was much more context and even a few areas not written about. I just wish all of you could read a full transcript to get the whole picture.

I am not claiming any misquoting or being taken out of context at all. Actually the context was there, I just wish that you, the reader, could have heard the discussion in its entire context to perceive the flow of topic, thought, and get the whole discussion. I think that if you could have heard what was said, how it was said, and followed the entire interview, you would have gotten a much different concept of how the candidates stacked up against one another rather than just a few quotes. In my own opinion, the difference between how things read in the paper versus how the interviews went is stark. "Ah, so, Grasshopper, you have learned much in this experience." Or if you prefer Yoda, "Much you have learned from this interview, I sense, hhhhhhhmmmmmm. Very interesting. Very interesting, in deed." By the way, I love doing Yoda impressions. Frank Oz, look out.




Also, in the interest of fairness, I did have to leave shortly after the portion of the interview with Jackie Lacy and me was over so I could return to work. Therefore, I did not get much of the questioning with Debbie Johnson, who unfortunately, arrived late. C'est la vie.

"The Herald" should be commended for their efforts in bringing issues to the public spectacle. Almost two thirds of a page was dedicated to this. They are doing the same with other towns, as well. Thanks, y'all.