This post was originally published on this site

opinion

Sometimes a question answers itself: On Friday 3/26 Mr. Shane Fitzgerald, Executive Editor, asked for feedback if people considered his industry fake news. His query was positioned top-of-page in our local paper. At the top of the very next page was a piece from guest columnist Chuck Collins.   

The first sentence, first paragraph stated “An annual wealth tax, levied on those who make more than 50 million a year…” Current usage defines the concept of a wealth tax as being levied on people with a net worth of more than $50 million, not making more than $50 million a year.  

Assuming the newspaper’s guest columnist is wrong — what are we to think? Biased? Misleading? Incompetent? Fake?  

Further, just this morning I saw multiple news reports stating that ex-President Trump was continuing “The Big Lie.” Journalists using such inflammatory, political language should not expect to be taken as finders-of-facts.   

Of course reporters can have their own opinions and use such terminology in private settings. However, reporters using such language when allegedly documenting news make it very hard for a moderate to consider them unbiased and factual.  

Stan Yavoroski  

Furlong  

Editor’s Note: Mr. Yavoroski is correct. The proposed wealth tax would be levied on those with assets of more than $50 million, not those who make more than $50 million a year, as the syndicated op-ed incorrectly stated.  

Related Posts