To the Editor:
I felt compelled to write something after reading your
responses to two letters to the editor regarding the
original report on January 30th of a two car fatal
crash on Rte. 245 Saturday night.
You should be ashamed of your responses to these
letters. They are worthy of internet chat rooms, not
letters from an editor. Your preachy response to a
truly offended reader, who was on the road that
evening and can speak to the character of the driver,
demonstrates your subjectivity in reporting this
accident. I could respect a response that focused
solely on the facts of the source a writer believes is
more reliable; however, for some reason you found the
need to insult the writers of the letters, the Sheriff
reporter, the deceased and anyone else out driving on
that night. And all for the sole purpose of trying to
prove you are right and they are wrong. If you didn't
believe that you owed the family and friends an
apology for the original article, reread your
responses and see if you still feel that way.
In one of your responses, you state that to change
your accurate report would be a disservice to your
readers. However, weren't you doing them a disservice
when you left out "for the weather and road
conditions" after you stated the driver was driving
too fast in the original article? Or is your service
to readers to provide drama and justification for
tragic accidents? It's much more exciting to envision
the driver going 90 mph at the time of the accident,
which could be implied by your editing. Also, people
hate the reality of dealing with random tragedies, so
thank you for trying to find justification for this
accident. Now everyone can sleep better at night
knowing that this type of accident couldn't happen to
them if they heed your advice of never leaving the
house or driving over 15 to 20 mph when the
temperature is below freezing. By the way, is that
speed range your opinion or do you have a veteran
source to confirm that under those specific
conditions, that was the appropriate speed of travel?
While it is prudent to try to learn from other
people's tragedies, a responsible reporter understands
the difference between commenting on potential ways to
avoid similar accidents and blaming the victim for
causing the incident. Of course accidents are more
serious at higher speeds, but that doesn't mean it is
reckless to drive above your suggested 15 to 20 mph.
It also is very easy to question the judgment of
others with the benefit of hindsight. Do you also
blame rape victims for putting themselves in
potentially compromising positions, the true dangers
of which are only really known after the tragic event
occurs?
The point is no one will ever know for sure what was
the leading cause of the crash or at what speed he was
driving. Absent Patrick Dean's letter, readers would
have been under the impression that the driver was
reckless and no one, not even the Reconstructionist,
knows that for sure. The only reason you are so
adamant that it was speed that led to the accident, is
so you can justify your sensationalist reporting.
Based on the wording of your original article, your
goal was not to warn your readers of driving too fast
in these weather conditions. To imply that greater
cause after your wording was questioned is
reprehensible.
If you develop any information other than that
provided by the Reconstructionist, please provide
same.
Nancy Beebe
Chicago, IL
