loading...
Welcome, You're signed in as: {{credentials.userName}}
But you still need to activate your account.
But you still need to activate your account.
I don’t agree with the Gustafsons (BDN, May 20-21), who thought your May 19 Page One story, “Salmon listing dangers may be inflated,” was an “editorial, disguised as a news story.” I would call the piece news analysis, which I think is the legitimate province of a news…
Sign in or Subscribe to view this content.
Sign in or Subscribe to view this content.
I don’t agree with the Gustafsons (BDN, May 20-21), who thought your May 19 Page One story, “Salmon listing dangers may be inflated,” was an “editorial, disguised as a news story.” I would call the piece news analysis, which I think is the legitimate province of a news reporter. Probably it should have been labeled as such, to adhere scrupulously to journalistic standards.
Nonetheless, I thought it was a story crying out to be written. The reporter, Susan Young, did her research on the consequences of endangered species listing in the law’s 25-year history. That aspect of the salmon controversy has been woefully absent from most of the coverage I’ve read. Gail Menzel Pembroke
Comments
comments for this post are closed