We wish to commend the WDN on the milestone they have finally achieved | Eastern NC Now

    Publisher's Note: This is a fine piece of writing in telling the absolute truth about those who are patently dishonest in what they do. Many thanks to the Beaufort Observer Editorial Team.

and we equally commend Stan and Hood in refusing to have their message controlled by the media

    There are probably few people who realize it, simply because they have not thought about it much, but the Hospital Controversy has produced a milestone in Beaufort County. The WDN has changed its approach to "journalism" from that of pretending to be fair, balanced and objective to that of "advocacy journalism." We think it is a good thing that the WDN is no longer pretending. Anyone who has read our posting of "What you should know about this website" understands that we have never felt it in the public's best interest that we, or any publication, pretend to be something they are not.

    There have been a number of examples of the WDN's metamorphous, but the most notable have been their attacks both on their editorial page and their "news" pages against Hood Richardson and Stan Deatherage and the WDN's crusading for University Health Systems to take over our health care system without due diligence being exercised by the Hospital Board or County Commissioners. They took this position, like Commissioners Klemm and McRoy before the proposals were finalized. They were a key reason the competitors in the negotiations backed out. And their attacks on the Limited Voting system are but an extension of their vitriol against Hood and Stan.

    But we find that a good thing from a public information perspective. Dropping the pretense of "being objective" will ultimately serve the public interest better than the charade that had been perpetrated by the WDN prior to now. We are confident that history will show that the WDN and the UHS Cheerleaders cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and resulted in a less desirable contract than a healthy competitive process would have achieved. And while that will be something the WDN will have to account for eventually, we think it a wholesome milestone in the public information system in our community. We now know they are not only not objective (which many of us knew long ago) but they now no longer pretend to be.

    Here is the proof, if you need any: WDN refuses to rebuild trust with Deatherage and loses source. Brandia Deatherage's article speaks much better than could we to what happened between Deatherage and the WDN. Stan is basically saying to the WDN: "you're not going to put words in my mouth or take words out of what I say; if you want to quote me, quote me intact or not at all." And the WDN responds, "we'll control what the people hear you say."

    The WDN has every right to make its own rules, even if few other publications use those same rules. We don't. Never have and never will.

    We operate on the premise that the public interest is better served by reporting as thoroughly as we can what our sources actually said or did. That is why we rely so much on video to report our stories of local meetings. Then we make no bones about our position on the issues. You may not always agree with us, but you'll seldom have trouble knowing where we stand. We don't pretend. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree with what an official said or did. But we doubt there is ever any doubt, and we hope seldom is there any misunderstanding, about what the source said or what we think about it. We lay it all out and let our readers decide. We're glad the WDN has come around to our way of thinking and doing business. We hope they will have the courage to hold to it.

    And we commend Hood and Stan for their stand. They insist on being quoted correctly or not being quoted at all. And "correctly" means without the publisher having editorial control of the message. We think that is a good thing.