May 04, 2012
To the Editor,
I believe that the front page of The Standard this past week inappropriately featured an article in which the address of a man accused of a serious sexual offense appeared. Specifically, I am concerned that distributing the exact location of his home – a home he may indeed share with others – before (or, frankly, even after) he has had an opportunity to address his “alleded” [sic] crimes is irresponsible in the extreme.
Although the residence in question did, according to the article, play an important role in the course of the crime as it was described, invading the privacy of the accused in this way not only endangers him, but also implicitly undermines due process as well as journalistic integrity. In spite of the fact that this information may indeed be readily obtained from various sources, deliberately publicizing it in this context engenders an aggressive strike against the presumption of innocence.
First, I would implore The Standard to delete this detail from the story as posted on the newspaper’s website; as an after thought, it may also prove beneficial to consider a more thoughtful editing process in the future, both with respect to an article’s content as well as its headline.
Editor’s Reply – The initial release of the alleged perpetrator’s address was made by the Nassau County Police Department and therefore became a matter of public record, especially as the NCPD posts this kind of information online. Additionally, websites had also posted this information in advance of our disseminating it in our print edition. As you surmise, because the alleged assaults took place at these venues, the addresses are material to the case. We believe it is in the public interest and right to know to fully report all of the facts in a given arrest, especially when the incident involved an alleged assault of this nature on a minor. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law, we take no position on that.
Mangano Pulled a Boehner?
To the Editor,
I was amused by the article describing our County Executive’s indignation at the Democrats in the Legislature, who tied a rider to the bond legislation. They must have learned that from Eric Cantor and John Boehner, who recently tied a rider to the Student Loan legislation.
It’s funny that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans see themselves as they really are – motivated by self-interest over the welfare of their constituents.
Vote in Support of H-W School Budget
To the Editor,
On Tuesday, May 15, voters of Hewlett-Woodmere School District will be given the opportunity to vote on the proposed school budget with a tax cap levy of 1.91 percent with a budget increase of 2.47 percent. Hewlett-Woodmere Central Council PTA, which includes all 5 building units and SEPTA, approve of the proposed budget and urge everyone to VOTE YES.
As we are all very well aware we are all living in very trying economic times. We all question why our taxes are so high and why they need to increase every year. The budget presented for our approval represents an increase of 2.47 percent which, once again, is one of the lowest increases in more than a decade. As well, our tax levy of 1.91 percent together with our budget increase falls within the average increase of many school districts across the county. This is a very low number given the fact that the vast majority of the total budget increase is based on numbers the district has no control over due to state and county costs that have been shifted onto the district together with additional unfunded mandates.
2.47 percent is a very small increase especially considering that this budget:
- Maintains programs and services most valued by community, parents and students.
- Maintains Elementary class size guidelines at current level.
- Maintains art, music and athletic programs.
- Eliminates two administrative positions
To sum up, the proposed budget maintains what has been valued most by our community with a minimal increase from budget to budget.
Please be sure to come out and VOTE YES. Not coming out to vote is equal to a “no” vote. Please come out to support our community on Tuesday May 15 at the Woodmere Education Center at One Johnson Place in Woodmere from 7:00AM to 10:00PM.
Please vote YES for all of our children and our community!
Mitchell A. Greebel
Central Council Co-President
Many of our readers sound off on our stories through our website and can post comments via Facebook. Here are two noteworthy comments from this week:
In Reply to comment on Inwood Redistricting Article which appeared originally in our March 23rd issue:
Jeremy Rosenberg said that:
“Being redistricted out of the Five Towns is extremely upsetting, it’s a true shame. But rest assured, being put in a Queens congressional district does not change your status as a Nassau County resident, and you will still be in the Lawrence School District. I urge you to contact your state legislators about the redistricting process.”
Commenting on our March 30th editorial “Americare: The Prescription for America if Obamacare is Struck Down or Repealed:”
Anita Lichtenberger posited on the web that:
“Here’s the reality of the current system: if you get cancer and lose your job you can pay for coverage through COBRA for 18 months if you have the money — usually more than $800 to $1,000 a month (keep in mind you’re unemployed). After 18 months you will no longer be eligible for group coverage rates unless you are employed. As a survivor of a serious or life threatening illness you will find either that no one will sell you an individual policy or you will need to pay an exorbitant premium for coverage that excludes any costs related to your pre-existing health conditions. You’ll need to pay for your cancer treatment or your child’s autism treatments or epilepsy disorder out of pocket until you’ve lost all of your assets (savings, home, cars) at which point you might qualify for public insurance that few doctors, therapists, or hospitals accept because payments are so low and the paperwork and treatment requirements so excessive.
Americare — basically accident rather than health insurance fails to address the real gaps in our current healthcare coverage system.
As long as individuals have the option to not purchase insurance, insurance companies have an excuse for refusing coverage to sick individuals or only giving partial coverage by eliminating coverage for “pre-existing conditions.”
Filed Under: Editorials
About the Author: