There's a very interesting article in the Nashua Telegraph today, "Anatomy of Duck and Cover." As the title suggests, it's defensive.
The title is also a pun because the Telegraph is defending itself for the way it has covered the "Duckgate" story in Nashua, in which a New Hampshire state representative, David Campbell, a Democrat, plowed into a flock of ducks in front of the Crowne Plaza Hotel. It turns out that he was probably drunk. He admitted to having "a couple" of drinks, and witnesses at the time said he appeared to be intoxicated - slurred speech, unsteadiness and smelling of booze. And it gets even worse. Police were called to the scene, but, before they could arrive, Campbell called a friend who drove him away.
And it's still worse than all the foregoing so far. That friend is alleged to be Nashua City Police Commissioner Thomas Pappas. This is a story that, as reported by the Nashua Telegraph, stinks to high heaven.
At first, I was defending Campbell. I thought that the editors at the Nashua Telegraph were overplaying their hand, which they were. We had no indication, based on the reporting as it was coming out then, that alcohol was a factor. All I could see was that the reporting accused Campbell of wildlife cruelty, and I didn't think that the evidence as presented supported the conclusion. Neither did Campbell's family. In various New Hampshire newspapers, they published a letter defending him from accusations of wildlife sadism. Meanwhile, I, in multiple online comments, accused the Telegraph of making an opportunistic partisan attack because I believe that they lean Republican.
Which is okay. Let them lean Republican. That doesn't bother me so much. What bothers me is that they pretend to be neutral. That's what they themselves profess: They say that they're evenhanded. I call baloney on that, except I use a different word, and I always point it out. Not because I'm against partisanship, but because I'm against disguising it.
Two days after the initial Dec. 29 report, the Telegraph published an editorial, "When Politicians and Ducks Collide," condemning Campbell as a duck killer. Here's what they said: "'Duck killer' is probably synonymous with 'career killer.'" There was no mention of alcohol. Try telling me that it wasn't political. Shortly after that editorial, it was reported that the Nashua Republican City Committee held a moment of silence for ducks.
Following their editorial, the Telegraph then over the course of several days began publishing a slew of letters attacking Campbell as cruel to ducks. A lot of online commenters also began speculating on drinking, but that wasn't yet in the reporting.
We have since learned from the early days about the roles of alcohol and crony corruption in the Duckgate affair. That wasn't there at first, but the Nashua Telegraph just couldn't wait to beat up on Campbell. Now they're taking heat for it. They're under fire. I think that I might have had something to do with it.
What makes me think that?
For one thing, my criticism about the paper hyping the story is the only bit of criticism directly quoted (without attribution). I'm the one who commented: "So some ducks got killed. Big deal. People eat them. Last week, I ordered 'Hunan Spicy Boneless Duck' at a Chinese restaurant. It was delicious."
Even more significantly, and something that's never happened to me before in my history of online commenting (a favorite hobby of mine), was that last week Jim Haddadin, the lead Telegraph reporter in the Duckgate affair, called me at home to debate my comments on his articles. To tell you the truth, it blew my mind. Whoa. A reporter calls me to debate his reporting? I must have struck a nerve. I wrote about it in my last blog post, "Duckgate Flap Hits Home."
It scared my wife when he called. She answered the phone first. When she learned afterward what the call was about, she became worried for our safety. She wasn't afraid of Mr. Haddadin, but what he did scared her. He had researched our home phone number. I never gave it to him. He wasn't sure he had the right Stephen Clark until he asked if I was the same one commenting on the Telegraph's website.
It shook my wife up. What we've done since then is go to the White Pages website and have our phone number and home address blocked. I've also subscribed to Safe Shepherd to monitor my information privacy. I've run into several nuts online who've threatened and tried to intimidate me before. Who needs harassing phone calls or loony-tunes zealots showing up at their doors to debate politics at the point of a gun? It's just not worth it.
But back to today's Nashua Telegraph article, "Anatomy of Duck and Cover":
The Telegraph lays out a timeline of its reporting, starting with an email they received from an "out-of-towner" named Jim Murphy, a witness to the duck killing incident at the Crowne Plaza Hotel. Part of that timeline includes Murphy's early information that David Campbell appeared to be drunk. What the Telegraph says in "Duck and Cover" is that they didn't use the information because it was one-sided with no other corroborating information. Fair enough. Don't blame Campbell for drunk driving until you can back it up.
But what that doesn't do is excuse the Telegraph for immediately beating up on Campbell as cruel to animals when drunkenness explains his behavior more accurately than sadism and they had information about alcohol in the beginning. The editors just couldn't wait to land on Campbell with both feet, so they used one - and it's a prosthesis, at that. The story is too juicy. And Campbell is a Democrat.
A moment of silence for ducks, please.
