The news that’s fit to print

In our January 26 issue, The River Reporter published a story titled “Youth traps bobcat.” The number of letters we have received on this article, and the passion expressed in them, was phenomenal. The majority of the letters deplored what they saw as an approving tone in the article. In contrast, Georgia Campfield, the mother of Josh Campfield, the young trapper, believed that the article was intended to foment criticism, writing “In my opinion, the article that was written got the negative desired effect it was looking for.” And one writer, veterinarian Steven Agoston of Bethel, actually expressed two different points of view at two different times. In his first letter, he wrote that the article “glorifies a slow, agonizing death,” but eventually conceded, “You got us all hot and bothered about something. Good job.”

The experience of the bobcat story raises some important questions about what counts as a news story, what a newspaper is, and how it functions as part of the community. Many animal lovers were furious about the fact that we printed the story. But would it have furthered the cause of animal rights if we had decided to conceal the fact that a bobcat had been trapped locally? Should we have printed the story, but kept the gruesome details of the death a secret, or hidden it on an inside page? Or isn’t the full disclosure of facts the prerequisite for any community to make decisions about how it is going handle matters like these?

Of course, it was not the mere fact that we published the article that bothered many people, but the perception that it was intended as a vindication of trapping. In point of fact, as journalists, our aim in a news story (whether or not we always succeed) is not to take sides one way or another, but to present the facts. In a story like this, some of the facts will be greeted with censure, some with celebration, and reactions will differ according to the reader. The fact that the article was perceived simultaneously, by different readers, as both extolling and condemning its subject matter, suggests that in this case we may have succeeded in our aim.

Our business as a newspaper is to present the facts to the readers. It is the business of the community to evaluate them, weigh them, and most importantly decide if there is anything that needs to be, and can be, done about them. When an ardent discussion is sparked by a newspaper article, then both the newspaper and the community are doing their jobs. And the ideal for which one hopes is that, instead of just ranting, participants in the conversation can see their way through to a constructive resolution of the issue in question.

In last week’s issue we printed a wonderful letter from Tom Lisenbee that did just that. He didn’t avoid taking a stand on the issue: he opposes trapping. But, as someone who had been a trapper himself as a youth, he showed genuine respect and empathy for the Campfields. Best of all, he proposed a solution: keep on “capturing” wild animals but with a camera. Such a solution would keep Josh outdoors, and take advantage of the valuable woodcraft he has developed as a trapper, without entailing suffering on the part of the animals. It could even turn into a full-time career.

We can certainly understand that printing the story of the trapped bobcat, complete with a gory picture in full color on the front page, aroused a lot of negative emotion. But we hope that both the article and the ensuing conversation have provided an experience from which all involved have learned something. What is clear beyond any doubt is that the community found the story worth thinking and talking about.

Also in this issue:

• Treasurer’s report: ‘Making the schools whole’

Dr. Punnybone

You Know Where, You Know When