What The Bee Didn’t Report

 To the Editor:

Controversy over expanding the high school was huge news last week. The Board of Selectmen unexpectedly derailed a project that had appeared to be on its way to a townwide referendum with the support of the Board of Finance and Legislative Council. There were many dimensions to the story and many voices to be heard. Faced with this bounty, The Bee produced three pieces that tended to focus on minor issues while failing to fully analyze the events and their implications or to solicit substantive reactions from many of the participants.

 One tough question left unasked was why the two selectmen waited until Monday to voice their opposition, especially given the tight timeline the project faces. And why was there no reporting on what it would actually take to amend the project while meeting the state’s June 30 deadline? Similarly, while noting the selectmen’s concerns about enrollment projections, greater-than-expected operating budget projections and the situation in the town of Portland, no further reporting illuminated these primary issues.

 Instead, The Bee wrote two pieces that focused on minor questions relating to the Independent Party of Newtown and the Board of Education. With so much riding on the outcome of the expansion debate, it seems odd that the decision was made to focus a story on whether IPN should have suggested to outraged citizens that they address their concerns to the Legislative Council (where the expansion had indeed been on the agenda) or should have urged people to express their views in some other forum instead.

The piece on the reactions of school officials was similarly hampered by a focus on why more of them weren’t at the selectmen’s meeting (and even here, the reporting was murky). Meanwhile The Bee failed to ask for (or chose not report on) Dr Robinson’s and Ms McClure’s comments on what, if anything, can be done to modify the project without missing the June 30 deadline, what the story is behind the operating budget revision, how they view the enrollment projections or what they make of the Portland situation.

 The failure to report on these questions is representative of another problem with The Bee’s coverage: the preponderance of opinions representing only one side of the issue. We heard extensively from Mr Mangiafico, Mr Portnoy, and Ms Fetchik but little from Mr Borst and nothing from the four members of the Board of Finance who approved the CIP. Mr Portnoy asserted that the vote might have gone differently if the revised operating budget had been provided to his board, but he voted No in the first place. Meanwhile there were apparently no interviews with any of the four board members who approved the project. Even more egregious in terms of journalistic fairness was the failure to request substantive comments from IPN officials while running a piece focused almost entirely on criticisms of their e-mail newsletter. That’s a violation of basic reporting practices. Surely the Bee can do better than this.

Sincerely,

Ben Roberts

19 Farrell Road, Newtown                                            March 26, 2008