For the fifth straight week, we’re being subjected tobbb a pro Brewster Hall editorial. The editor is pulling out all the stops and just pummeling everyone that offers a negative point about the place.
Use of this Bully Pulpit is his prerogative as editor, but it’s sad to see the complete abandon of journalistic standards in favor of boosting the cause.
For the record, I don’t think that the main controversy is about Brewster Hall being unsafe or unhealthy. If it wasn’t a dump we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all. The real issue is how the town addresses the need for reasonable and adequate town offices.
But back to journalistic standards. A few weeks ago we were lectured by the editor about the reckless use of facts. How about this:
Battery-backed emergency lighting and lighted exit signs have also been added.
I don’t see any exit signs here, but then again I took this a few days ago. So I went back down there this morning and took another look. None – nada, none in the annex, none in the town clerks office, none in the tax-collector’s. In the courtroom here, there isn’t even a faded old paper sign stapled to the bottom the door as in a few other places.
How important are they anyway? Since they are ubiquitous, we don’t notice them, or their absence. But fill a room up with smoke and that’s the first thing you would look for, not just those unfamiliar with the building, like the thousands of citizens that Sarah Silk says go there every week, but even employees who might become disoriented in a smoke filled room.
I would think that the editor, before making safety a headline issue, would at least take a few minutes to check some basic facts.
The editor also makes a lot of irresponsible and unfounded statements about mold, and I’ll get to that in another post.