Written to Biscayne Times 5/3/14. Never Printed, Of Course.

In reading the letters in the May, 2014, issue, I was struck by a curious pattern.  Three people wrote to you about a story about the Cushman school, and they all complained.  Their complaint was the same in each case: the author got it wrong.  They weren't complaining that the author came to different conclusions than they did, or that he interpreted differently than they did.  They said his facts were wrong.  The author of the next letter, about development on Biscayne Boulevard, made the identical complaint, about a different author of a different story.

I have written to you many times over the past few years, and my complaint has always been the same as your other letter-writers'.  BT writers seem not to be good about getting the facts correct.  I also remember a long response you got from Bunny Yeager, about a story done about her.  Same complaint: a long string of wrong facts.  There was an identical complaint that came from Morningside about some issue.

There are two questions about this pattern: what does it mean, and how does it happen?  Not being the publisher myself of a periodical, I don't know the rules, and I don't know the expectations.  Is it considered acceptable for authors/journalists to get a proportion of stories wrong?  The BT is not a daily, or even a weekly, and we would imagine authors have plenty of time to do adequately careful (not careless) research.  How do you want your readers to understand and absorb inaccurate stories?  These stories are presented as if they were intended to be informational.  For myself, it is not my reflex to assume they are merely fanciful and intended only to entertain.  Have I gotten it wrong?  If I have, the letters suggest I'm not the only one.

Then, there is the question as to how it seemingly so frequently happens.  If "facts" are presented, and they're wrong, should readers assume they were only made up by the author?  Why would an author invent facts?  Does he think a story would be more interesting if told a certain way, even if it's not true?  Sometimes, the "facts" result from quotes of people to whom the author spoke.  If "facts" are wrong, should we assume sources are not quoted accurately?  For some of these stories, when I know a lot about the content, I can see the author is highly selective about whom he interviews, or whom he quotes.  Is that the source of the trouble?  Too many eggs in one basket, and the author should have spoken to more people who might have corrected inaccuracies?

I have said before, and I will say again, you employ some very fine writers.  If they could only get their facts straight, or if they had an honest intention to do so, it would make a great difference to your readers.

And by the way, occasionally printing letters of complaint and correction is not nearly as valuable, or as fair, as simply getting it right to begin with.  And who knows how many of these letters you don't print.  I know you don't print most of mine.

Fred Jonas



Apparently, Erik Bojnansky of the BT is sniffing around looking for information for a story.  It seems the story is to be about the dais, but also about outsourcing sanitation and annexation.  Bojnansky has spoken to at least one of the Commissioners, but not to me.  It is of course unknown who alerted the BT/Bojnansky to these situations and controversies.