Monday, December 29, 2014

Local Paper Dehumanizes Its Enemies, Calls For Blacklisting

ThorazineIn the nearly ten years of editing the Adirondack Almanack, I’ve seen some pretty nutty and occasionally outrageous writing. Rarely does it warrant a response, but an anonymous foaming-mouthed editorial in Friday’s Denton papers (Adirondack Journal, North Creek News Enterprise, Times of Ti, Valley News, etc.) simply cannot go unanswered.

It is perhaps the most vicious, poorly researched, and cowardly personal attack published in the Adirondacks in the last 20 years.

Reasonable readers are familiar with Denton’s one-sided stories, obfuscations, and occasional outright lies, and they are profoundly on display here.  There is no point in addressing them all, because their main argument is that Protect the Adirondacks are our collective enemies – subhuman outsiders who should be blacklisted, silenced, “abolished,” and driven out of our communities.

For a start, Protect the Adirondacks is demonstrably one of the oldest and most deeply-rooted of Adirondack organizations. The Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, now known as Protect, was established in 1901 and its founding membership list reads like a history of the Adirondacks in the 19th century. Denton was founded in 1948, although the current ownership dates to only 1988.

Claiming people you don’t agree with don’t belong here is sinister enough, but it’s laughable for readers of the North Creek News Enterprise who know that Denton has owned that paper for less than 10 years. Their Johnsburg neighbor and Protect board member Evelyn Greene wrote for the North Creek News Enterprise for longer than Denton has owned it.  Maybe childish exuberance is the reason Denton’s editors think they can insult their neighbors.

The facts are that the vast majority of Protect members and supporters live or own property here. Two-thirds of their board live full-time in the Adirondack Park; a third either made or make their living here; five board members run businesses here that employ over a dozen people. All but two of Protect’s 18 board members own property and pay taxes here.  Some of those taxes go to Denton, in the form of subsidized shipping rates at the post office and sweetheart “legal notice” deals with local governments.

Aggrandizing themselves as our official spokesmen (yes, spokes-men) and railing against their enemies is Denton’s stock-in-trade. But this time, they have simply gone too far by dehumanizing their enemies as pigs “wallowing in the shadows” and snakes who should “slink back to their headquarters”. Those are the words and imagery used by history’s most hate-filled zealots to dehumanize their enemies, to silence them, to drive them out, and worse. Drawing from the same well, they incredibly call on readers to “cut the head off this long-tentacled monster known as Protect the Adirondacks”. It’s disgraceful, particularly in light of the fact that not that long ago a Protect board member had his business torched by an arsonist that is probably still at large.

The members and supporters of Protect are not pigs and snakes and no one has the right to drive them out. They are not our enemies, they are our friends. They are members of our families. They are our neighbors. They are our collaborators in our fire departments, theater groups, at PTA meetings, and in town halls and our schools. Many of them are from families who have lived here for centuries.

Equally egregious is that these attacks have been penned anonymously by an unidentified “Denton Publications Editorial Board”.  Who sits on this board? One suspects that it’s made of at least some of the Alexander family, who own the company.  Three of the seven names on the masthead are Daniel E. Alexander, Daniel E. Alexander Jr., and Ashley Alexander. Ed Coates is listed, as is William Coates. (Nepotism runs deep at Denton, “Bill Coates” is an author of a scathingly racist letter to the editor published on the opposite page).

Refusing to reveal the authors darkens the reputations of those who write for Denton papers.  I count some who write every week in the company’s papers as friends, and well-respected voices in our community – I hope they’ll make clear that they didn’t have a hand in this.

The final assault in the Denton piece attacks local reporters.

“The media is to blame for giving these organizations credibility. Why even allow them a voice at the table when discussing these projects?” they write. “Let us be the first to say that Denton Publications, for one, will no longer be [Protect Executive Director Peter] Bauer’s bully pulpit. We call on other media outlets to follow suit.”

Will other media outlets follow this call to blacklist and censor groups like Protect, the Adirondack Mountain Club, the Adirondack Council, the Nature Conservancy, and those who hold similar beliefs from their stories?

Adirondack bureau chief Brian Mann of North Country Public Radio and managing editor Peter Crowley of the Adirondack Daily Enterprise have joined representatives from Denton Publications in moderating congressional debates. Will they tacitly endorse this disservice to the very notion of journalism and the free exchange of ideas by continuing to lend their credibility to those who would not just silence their opponents, but actively work to drive them from our midst?

Journalism professionals should use this as an opportunity to reassure their listeners and readers that the censorship of ideas and personal attacks, especially those that dehumanize, have no place in our community. I hope they will.

Update 9:54 am: Brian Mann of North Country Public Radio has rejected Denton’s editorial here.


John Warren

John Warren has been exploring the woods and waters of the Adirondacks for more than 45 years. After a career as a print journalist and documentary television producer he founded Adirondack Almanack in 2005 and co-founded Adirondack Atlas in 2015.

John’s Adirondack Outdoors Conditions Report can be heard Friday mornings across the region on North Country Public Radio and on WSLP Lake Placid.

He is also on the staff of the New York State Writers Institute and edits The New York History Blog. He is the author of two books of regional history.




50 Responses

  1. Wow. After reading your article, I read the editorial in question. If I were Protect! I would use the editorial as the cornerstone for a fundraising campaign.

    I work on complex energy projects, which always have significant, well organized opposition. This opposition makes us prove why our projects are suitable from an environmental perspective, and in compliance with all regulatory requirements. This opposition is legitimate and founded on strong personal beliefs. I respect that and would never address or treat people who hold differing views in the manner of this editorial.

  2. Dick Carlson says:

    Nice piece John. I couldn’t believe the Editorial either. Their credibility has gone way South for me. I don’t always agree with Protect on every issue, but I’m glad they’re there advocating for Adirondack issues. The Editorial is way over the top.

  3. Scott van Laer scottvanlaer says:

    Besides the tone it’s just wrong…”Nevermind that the Adirondack Club and Resort project was one of the most scrutinized developments ever to come before the APA board, including when Protect member and former APA Executive Director John Glennon served.” It’s actually Bob Glennon. How can such an obvious error get through a fact check? I can assure you all he doesn’t drive a BMW either.

  4. Tim says:

    Thank you, thank you! I wrote a personal email to John
    Gereau, Managing Editor, and Dan Alexander, publisher, complaining about the editorial.
    And let’s not ignore the letter to the editor written by Bill Coats in the same issue: http://www.denpubs.com/news/2014/dec/26/other-side-story/ I am flabbergasted DentonPubs published such an outright racist, inflammatory, and shameful letter.

  5. Bob Meyer says:

    this guy sounds like Joseph McCarthy from the 50s & needs to be dealt with the same way….comdenation by his fellow editiors… do the right thing folks !

  6. Bruce says:

    No byline…why even bother reading such drivel. Editorials in our local paper often offer up scathing attacks on this or that, but at least we know who wrote it.

  7. Pete Klein says:

    When I go to the Post Office on Fridays, the day when the FREE Denton paper is in the mail box, I always notice how many end up in the trash box to never leave the Post Office.
    I always take it home just to see what idiocy is in this paper that hardly ever has any useful news for the public.

  8. Dave P says:

    I usually don’t bother reading this paper that gets put in our mailbox each week. But for some reason I read the article on the ACR and happened to see the editorial. WOW, I was shocked, even more so than some other editorials. I don’t always agree w Protects’ positions but if I were them I’d bring a suit against Denton for Slander.

  9. Randy says:

    Yikes! What a buncha drivel. Having earned my journalism “chops” at the University of Missouri School of Journalism I learned long ago that opinions on the editorial and letters pages are just that, and not news. These people have a right to express their opinions, fact-based or not, but others also have the right to counter those opinions. All that being said, it’s a shame that the “editorial board” remains anonymous in this instance, since their opinions are so strong on the matter. It would be refreshing to see Denton publish a rebuttal in their papers. But I will not be holding my breath.

  10. Brian Mann Brian Mann says:

    Hi folks –

    I’ve shared my thoughts about Denton’s editorial on NCPR’s In Box blog. You can find that in full by clicking here:

    http://blogs.northcountrypublicradio.org/inbox/2014/12/30/heres-why-ncpr-wont-help-abolish-protect-the-adirondacks/

    One particular irony of Denton’s editorial is that they attack Protect for suing the APA which, only a few years ago, Denton itself argued should be closed down.

    Indeed, Denton’s own critique of the APA — asserting that the Agency engages in “arbitrary enforcement, hypocritical acts and subjective interpretation of the APA Act” — could be lifted directly from Protect’s lawsuit.

    It goes without saying that NCPR will continue to cover Protect’s activities.

    –Brian Mann, NCPR

  11. Hawthorn says:

    fishwrap
    Slang for any printed journalistic medium (newspaper, magazine, etc.) with such low credibility and standards in acceptable journalism, that its only useful function is to wrap fresh fish in–Urban Dictionary

  12. John Warren Will Doolittle says:

    I also think the editorial went too much too far. Having written pieces myself that weren’t too different in tone from it, the editorial gave me pause to reflect on the dangers of getting carried away with your own rhetoric. The editorial was unfair to Peter Bauer (I should know; I’ve been unfair to him in commentary myself), and it distorts the record and the goals of Protect. There is reason to be encouraged by the way environmental groups have been working with local governments recently. We can’t move forward by clinging to extreme positions.

    • John Warren John Warren says:

      We’re having some trouble with our commenting system right now.

      I posted Will’s comment above at his request, unfortunately, it has my photo attached and Will is far better looking.

      We’re working on this issue.

      John Warren
      Editor

    • Mark says:

      Denton went far beyond good journalism with their editorial. This said, Will – I agree that we have seen some of the environmental groups making an effort to work with local government. Sadly, Protect is not among those reasonable groups willing to work toward consensus and a common ground in the Adirondacks. Protect has cost both taxpayers and private investors tremendous amounts of money with frivolous law suits. While I don’t like the way Denton wrote their editorial, it’s actually very similar in tone and approach to the way that Bauer attacks those who disagree with him. So perhaps it is just a taste of his own medicine.

  13. Brian Mann Brian Mann says:

    Bluntly, I think a lot of the broad criticism of Denpubs posted here is pretty far off the mark.

    As John Warren suggests in his OP, there are some great writers and reporters working for the newspaper chain.

    Their business model has allowed them to maintain significant coverage in some of the North Country’s most remote communities.

    That’s a huge contribution. I often follow in behind Denpubs after learning about something in their pages.
    John links semi-regularly to Denpubs, another sign that they’re raising awareness about issues that matter.

    So…I think the conversation over this particular editorial is a good one to have, but context is important.

    —Brian, NCPR

  14. Hawthorn says:

    “So…I think the conversation over this particular editorial is a good one to have, but context is important.”

    Context is important, which is why any paper that publishes editorials like that loses credibility and becomes less trustworthy. Papers can’t hide behind the cover of it being “just an editorial,” particularly when it is anonymous. How can I, the reader, to know what hidden agendas lurk behind other items published? I see that all the time in our local rag, which is not a Denton pub. Many news stories become slanted by their strange editorial vision and hidden loyalties to advertisers and power brokers.

  15. Brian Mann Brian Mann says:

    Hawthorn –

    I don’t disagree with you. This editorial deserves to be read in the context of the paper’s larger service and, yes, the editorial itself also shapes part of the context for how people will view Denpubs and its publications.

    But the editorial is not the whole picture. And I stand by my assertion that the chain’s papers are providing an important service in many communities, which is contrary to some of the views expressed above.

    –Brian, NCPR

    • John Warren John Warren says:

      I’m confused here Brian, are you referring to the comments on the post or my commentary?

      If it’s my commentary, perhaps you could point us to the the place where you think I said Denton is not providing a service?

      Also, you seem to be dodging a bit the really critical part of my commentary. So perhaps you could clarify.

      Are we supposed to accept Denton Publications sitting beside you at the table as our representatives in future congressional debates? Where is the balance in that? It would seem that if we have to be represented by hatred for Forest Preserve advocates, that should be balanced by someone representing love for Forest Preserve advocates. Who represents that position? You? Or no one? Are you OK with that imbalance?

      I would argue that neither should be represented. Editors sit at the table of congressional debates because they are generally judged to be fair-minded. Now that we know one of them is not, where does that leave the reputation of fairness in public congressional debates? (As one example of many).

      • Brian Mann Brian Mann says:

        Sorry if I was unclear. No, I think your post makes it clear that you like and respect some of Denpubs’ journalists. I added my view that the chains’ papers provide important coverage.

        Some of the comments here, however, have suggested that Denpubs’ journalism is essentially worthless. Pete Klein and Hawthorn’s comments in particular. I respectfully disagree.

        Regarding your other point, yes, I think Denpubs remains a valid and important news organization, and I would happily partner with their journalists on a case-by-case basis.

        Would this editorial be a factor if invited to collaborate on particular projects? Sure. But that kind of caution is true with everyone we work with.

        Years ago, the Adirondack Explorer chose to publish an essay (not a lead editorial) that appeared to joke about using piano wire and land mines as methods to deter snowmobile ridership.

        I disagreed pretty vehemently at the time with that particular editorial decision, but it didn’t (in my mind) disqualify the Explorer as an important source of information and ideas.

        Meanwhile, out of curiosity — what’s your plan? Does the Almanack intend to continue linking to Denpubs’ stories?

        –Brian, NCPR

        • John Warren John Warren says:

          Thanks for making that clear. I disagree with putting a signed essay with an obvious joke, however abhorrent, on par with the kind of egregious blacklisting that someone (we still don’t know who) has called for here. They are are not comparable in my mind.

          At the Almanack I endeavor to find the most balanced (or in-depth) version of a news story I can. So yes, we will continue to link to Denton when appropriate, as I did yesterday with the Lake George story under our “Latest News” at the right. Of course I can no longer link to stories that readers can’t read because they are behind a pay wall, so they are not always the most in depth or balanced (though once or twice I’ve had to link to stories that were behind a pay wall, because no one else covered them). But again, linking to an individual story is not the same as representing voters on a congressional debate panel. In my view, until Denton retracts its blacklist, they have no place representing the citizens of our democracy at such an important event.

          • Brian Mann Brian Mann says:

            Hmm. I think you’re reaching for a distinction without a difference.

            If you feel that Denpubs is, despite this editorial, a worthy enough source of trustworthy information to help you inform the Almanack’s readers, I don’t see why they aren’t a worthy enough source to partner with in other ways.

            The Congressional panel example that you cite might be tetchy if, for example, the Denpubs reporter used that platform as an opportunity to give voice to the newspaper’s editorial views on the environment or development issues. But I can’t honestly see that happening.

            I think their journalists would perform just as well in those settings as they will in providing the articles that you make use of in your aggregation.

            Let me say this so as to be unambiguous:

            There are some purported news organizations that I view as fundamentally ethically compromised. I just wouldn’t partner with them, period.

            But whatever the flaws of this editorial (and I think John’s essay hits some salient points) I don’t see Denpubs as coming anywhere close to that line.

            –Brian, NCPR

            • dave says:

              You really don’t see the difference between a bad joke and a serious call for blacklisting?

            • John Warren John Warren says:

              I’m not buying it Brian.

              First, you don’t know who wrote that editorial, or whose views it represents, so you seem to have already made up your mind about how you’ll move forward without any of the pertinent information. We ought to know who we’re talking about before we start claiming what they would and would not do, or whether we’ll sit beside them at a congressional debate.

              I’ve heard through the grapevine that this piece was written by Pete DeMola. Until we know different, it represents his views, and that of those named above, along with Managing Editor John Gereau (who still refuses to identify the Editorial Board), and editors Maggie Morgan, Andrew Johnstone, Thom Randall, Keith Lobdell, Scarlette Merfeld, and possibly one or more of the columnists and reporters, who sit on the unidentified Editorial Board.

              Second, this does not meet even the most fundamental level of journalistic or editorial ethics. Denton is free to write whatever they want, but if professional journalists expect to be taken seriously, they should not stand by why their name is dragged through the mud by those who claim their mantle while violating their basic ethical standards.

              This is not a debate over ACR, or a few individual stories linked on the Almanack – this is a debate about whether as editors we should sit beside Denton editors (and possibly some of their journalists and columnists) and pretend they represent the principles of professional journalism.

              They don’t. So they have no place on a panel of journalists representing citizens at congressional debates.

              I raise this point because it’s a likely possibility that one of the authors of this piece will be posing questions to the Green candidate in the next congressional debate. That would be inherently unfair.

  16. Jim S. says:

    I believe that Denton actually ended up helping Protects cause by publishing such a vile editorial. I personally didn’t agree with the last lawsuit brought against the ACR (I was against the resort from the start but thought the last suit was a waste of time) but I believe strongly in the right of fighting against it. I am going to look into supporting Protect with more than just my typing.

  17. PJM says:

    Thanks, Brian Mann for putting John Warren’s anger into some perspective. I live in Utica, on the edge of the Adirondack Park,
    so I take an active interest in the activities on the APA and enjoy reading Adirondack Almanack. But since I don’t have access to Denton Publications, I didn’t understand Warren’s argument. NCPR does help inform us outsiders (and I like its balanced reporting) and I can get NCPR either online or hear it on WRVO-Utica.

  18. Wally Elton Wally says:

    As a resident of Saratoga Springs, I guess I am one of the subhuman outsiders. But I don’t feel personally hurt by this attack. I will continue to visit the Adirondacks in the future and contribute to the local economy. What does bother me the most is that any “journalist” is able to publish such trash anonymously. “Cowardly” seems like a good word, along with “irresponsible” (too mild). It is an assault on journalistic standards as well as those who disagree. Anyone have specific suggestions on how we can respond effectively (besides supporting the organizations named)?

  19. Jeff says:

    Racist? McCarthy? Humm. Having been involved for many years on the opposing side of Mr. Bauer and the organizations he has represented. I can understand the vitriol against him and Protect by local people who do not buy his or those groups ideas. I do not condone silencing people. A lot of people in and outside of the blue line feel that Mr. Bauer and Protect talk only of working together when the camera is on. As soon as the camera is off, it is my way or the highway. Many have seen it. Protect will tell you in meetings one thing and the following day they have filed suit in court. I like many do not believe a word they say. What other groups carry the political clout in Albany? A single phone call to the Governor’s office or the NYSDEC Commissioners office gets an audience immediately. If not a lawsuit will follow. As for the statement that the environmental groups are working with the local areas in the Park. Yeah right. More of the same.

    • Peter Bauer says:

      Jeff,

      You make some serious allegations above. Let me be clear: You are flat wrong.

      You provide nothing to support your claims and you weaken your case by leveling such serious charges anonymously.

      PROTECT posts all of its public positions online. I think we do this better than any other Adirondack group and most other advocacy organizations. I also think that through our website posts, and those here on the Almanack, we’re very good about letting everybody know where we stand.

      All of our positions can be found under “Public Comments” on our website for all to see: http://www.protectadks.org/public-comments/

      I have heard from some that they do not agree with PROTECT’s positions here and there, but I have not heard from anybody that they do not know where we stand. Brian Mann, who covers these issues closely, wrote yesterday that he has never found me dishonest or deceptive is his many years covering Park issues.

      You make some serious allegations about the way that PROTECT does business. Please back them up.

  20. Dick Beamish Dick Beamish says:

    Seems that DenPubs has nowhere to go but up. Next they could sponsor an Annual Adirondack Book Burning Festival and toss into the fire any books they might find un-American–for example, those that warn about climate change. They could also burn Peter Bauer’s own publications, including one he compiled about the damage caused by rogue ATV riders in the Forest Preserve. Plus his guide for lakeshore and watershed development where he pictured and described ecologically sound vs. ecologically damaging development on Lake George. Other candidates for book burning include the APA’s Land Use and Development Plan–a radical document if ever there was one.

  21. Dave Olbert says:

    I agree with the majority that DenPubs was way over the top on its editorial. I to do not agree with Protect on several issues but respect their collective beliefs. As for the criticism on the editor(s) not publishing their names I find it interesting that many who post on this online paper do not clearly identify themselves.

    • John Warren John Warren says:

      “many who post on this online paper do not clearly identify themselves”

      Where?

      All of our stories are signed, except simple announcements and uncontroversial stories run under the “Editorial Staff” byline, which is a standard newspaper practice, and for which the source is indicated clearly below each story: “Stories written under the Almanack’s Editorial Staff byline are drawn from press releases and other notices.”

      We do not publish anonymous commentaries ever.

  22. Dick Beamish Dick Beamish says:

    John,

    Seems to me that many of the postings are essentially anonymous, since only the first name is given. For example, who is “Jeff”–the guy who denounced Peter Bauer a few comments back?

    Dick Beamish

    • John Warren John Warren says:

      Those are comments, not Adirondack Almanack created posts.

      We allow anonymous comments because there is no way to confirm the identity of people using the internet. Internet users should know that what they read in comments sections are always anonymous, even when people appear to be using their own name. The Dave Olbert above may not be Dave Olbert of Newcomb, it may be a different Dave Olbert, or someone simply using the name Dave Olbert – we have no way to know. For example, someone is using the name Brain Mann in NCPR’s comment section, but it’s not Brain Mann from NCPR. (I would not allow that, by that way, if I knew it was happening.)

      Unfortunately, it’s either allow anonymous comments or not allow comments at all.

      I will say that if you review the comments here and the comments on Brian Mann’s piece, you’ll notice that the comments here tend to be more serious, less vicious, and more informed. I think there are several reasons for that, but that’s a topic for another day.

      • Dave Olbert says:

        Morning John,
        I am new to the Almanack comment section. I frequently read the articles and the comment section (when I have time) but had chosen not to reflect my opinion even when getting negative reviews for Cloudsplitter. I enjoy the Almanack and think it’s a valuable medium to address Park issues that are important to all of us. It was not my intent to insult you or this publication, I was just making a comment about comment transparency. I think that is important, especially if you are going to criticize someone or some type of organization publicly. I do understand that someone could be misrepresented but if that happened I think it would become ostensible. By the way, I am the Dave Olbert from Newcomb.

  23. Avon says:

    Anyone targeted by the vitriolic editorial is right to feel attacked, and justified in feeling unfairly attacked, and even understandable in feeling literally unsafe. But the rest of us have no such excuse.

    Just as there’s freedom of the press for an article that calls the editorial sinister and points out its proximity to a racist letter, there is also freedom of the press for the editorial itself. Either or both may overstate their case, or invoke sinister images such as “long-tentacled,” “dehumanize,” “driven out” and “hate-filled,” whether it’s the opposing publication they’re talking about or the opposing publication’s allies or causes.

    And either or both may choose to remain anonymous; it’s actually a hot topic right now at the Supreme Court level whether a right to freedom of speech inherently includes a right to choose whether and how to reveal one’s self when speaking. (Although it’s also fair to reply that anonymity has undermined the speaker’s credibility.) Indeed, anyone may urge a boycott or oppose one – even though urging a legitimate press outlet to eliminate coverage of stories or individuals seems rather dopey.

    It’s useful to shed light on a subject, and to rebut an outrageous opponent with the facts; we need to know about Protect. But it’s pointless to try to “win” a battle of wits, even against an unarmed man (as the saying goes). Maybe it’s time to remind both Denpubs and Warren of this: Nobody gets convinced by a longer, more emotional argument, unless they’re largely convinced already.
    Still, we do need the facts. And we need vigilance, too, lest hyperbolic language drive its readers to lean toward violence or other expressions of hatred.

    But we also need to be able to just “change the channel” when we reject what we see or hear … let’s not start thinking that it solves anything to yell at the TV.

    I, for one, am simply not going to read that editorial! And (not being a Denpubs subscriber) I’m not going to lose any sleep over the issue, either. Tuning out now.

  24. John Sullivan says:

    John — I won’t belabor all the points made before me, but congratulate you for a thorough story. Thanks.
    By the way, I have never considered any of these “shoppers” as they are called in the business, to come close to being a source of real news. If such appears, it is only by accident.

  25. ADKerDon says:

    Bravo to Denton Pubs. for showing the world just what a corrupt, Adirondacker hating organization Protect the Adirondacks is. This organization and all its leaders have for years been pushing genocide, murder, and extinction of the Adirondack people. They have destroyed all jobs, businesses, and livelihood here. They have destroyed all wildlife habitat, contributing to the murder and extinction of over 20 strains of our native brook trout. Only the scum of humanity is stupid enough to continue to support this worthless group.

    • Dale Jeffers says:

      I assume that this a spoof on Denton

    • TRAILOGRE says:

      The thing ADKERDON doesn’t get is that without people like Peter Bauer, love or hate him…. the Adirondacks would look like Bergan County in NJ …..if it were not for the job he does (Peter Bauer not ADKERDON)we would all be worse off

  26. Lily says:

    John –
    I read the editorial before I saw your response here and was appalled at the cut-throat personal attack of Peter Bauer. Actually re-read it to be certain I hadn’t mis-construed its intent. So much for 10+ years of “healing” and building bridges between factions in the Park! Thank you for publicly denouncing Denton’s vitriol.

  27. I lost complete respect for Denton when they essentially plagariazed a guest essay from my blog. They later gave attribution after the author called them out on it (at least online, not sure if they ever ran a print correction) but it illustrated their standards pretty clearly. There’s no doubt they would’ve gotten away with it and never given attribution had they not gotten caught with their hand in the cookie jar. It’s sad that a purported journalistic outfit would criticize other outlets for practicing responsible journalism.

  28. Paul says:

    I didn’t even bother reading the “editorial” so with that said this “publication” has always seemed a bit fishy to me? Calling them out is good, ignoring them might be better.

    Unfortunately SOP these days for some is to post crazy stuff to help it go viral, even if in this case they thought this stuff was legit by their crazy measure.

  29. mike says:

    Tempest in a teapot. For all the nasty writing by Peter about others, and all the lawsuits, this sort of reaction is entirely predictable. It all generates readership, ad sales and so on. Yawn.

  30. Christine Bourjade ChristineB. says:

    http://www.whitbeckassociates.com/listing/151033/44-mohawk-way-elizabethtown-ny-12932/

    On page 1 fourth entry is 44 Mohawk Way:
    http://www.co.essex.ny.us/downloads/2014%20ETown%20Final%20Assessment%20Roll.pdf

    This newspaper is a disgrace, the owner new house (built not following regulations/ too high)is for sale, hopefully it will get sold and we will see them move far far away…

  31. Pablo Jones says:

    The Almanac editorial was basically preaching to the choir. Peter Bauer’s friends have come to his defense.

    But that said, the Denton editorial was over the top. Telling Protect to “slither” back somewhere is not productive to starting a dialog or exchanging ideas, which is something editorials are supposed to do.

    An editorial is still the position of the media that produced it. If it were signed by one person it would be a column, not an editorial. So to call it anonymous is not correct; the editorial staff is on the masthead of the papers.