I know you said you didn’t want . . . but

“Surprise!”

As you walked into your house for a quiet night with the family, all of your friends jump out from behind the furniture and shout “surprise”.

The instigator steps forward just beaming. “I know you said you didn’t want a surprise party”, they say, “but I just couldn’t resist.”

There are three very important parts to that last sentence:

(1) You didn’t want a surprise party.
(2) They acknowledge that they knew you didn’t want a surprise party.
(3) They decided to throw you one anyway to meet their own needs and not yours.

Underneath it all they are convinced that really you will be happy anyway and will thank them. You just didn’t want to ask them for one.

Have you ever been at a surprise party for someone who didn’t want to be surprised? It can really feel uncomfortable. You came in good faith because you thought everything would be lots of fun for the person for whom the party was being thrown. And it just wasn’t. You feel the heat of embarassment and wish you weren’t there. The victim might feel that you were part of the planning of this event.

Karen Kurdziel of the Sun Press and her editors threw us a surprise party. We understand that a story about a child dying has to be told and the level of health risk must be described. But the story they ran was intrusive.

Friends of ours called to warn us that a story was coming. The paper was even called and told of our wishes not to have Elena exploited. The paper’s response was that families have objected in the past and later thanked the paper.

I’m sure there are some people who feel that way. Kim and I are not among them.

In fact, Kurdzeil writes that me and my “family were adamant that their daughter’s private – yet all too public – death not be shared with the press.” And yet Kurdzeil just couldn’t resist. We’ll just love it.

She wrote that we asked for “No interviews. No comments to reporters from friends or relatives. No photos of sunny, funny Elena.” And yet the Sun Press ran a picture of Elena.

Let me tell you where they got this picture of my dead daughter that they ran in their newspaper. They came to the funeral, they took a program, and they photographed the photo that we had printed on the front page of the program and published it without our permission.

In the scheme of things that suck about this past week, this is a minor one. But it was the first thing that Kim saw when she woke up this morning and picked this paper off of the doorstep.

I apologized to Kim. This intrusive insensitive scribe would not have had the information had it not been for this blog. She assured me that she didn’t fault me for writing it but faulted the author for using it.

Neither of us have anything but appreciation for Helen who put such a beautiful program together so quickly for us. She is not to blame for someone misusing the pictures printed on a program for a memorial service.

Sure I’m sharing things here in a public way, but the article, and in particular the picture felt like such a violation.

Published in: on March 2, 2006 at 3:19 pm  Comments (39)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://dearelena.wordpress.com/2006/03/02/i-know-you-said-you-didnt-want-but/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

39 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. As a former journalist, I feel a need to apologize on behalf of journalism for the actions of this bottom-feeder. Yet every organization I’ve ever worked with — companies that would never hire a Karen Kurdziel, and won’t if I have anything to say about it to my colleagues in the industry — was careful to respect the privacy and feelings of private individuals caught up in stories. Simply put, class-act newspapers and radio/TV stations don’t act this way. For one thing, it’s callous, insensitive and heartless… basically defective human behavior. For another, readers/viewers don’t like seeing people hurt like this. For a small community paper, exploiting community members like this is the last thing they’ll want to be seen doing. No wonder everyone hates the media.

    If people find your blog from the article, I hope they cancel their subscriptions.

    An apology from Karen’s editors, or better yet her resignation letter, would be appropriate too.

    –Chris

  2. I am OUTRAGED at her article, I am cancelling my my subscription right after I get off the computer, and I encourage others to do the same. Ms. Karen should be out of a job ASAP. God Bless your family, we do not know you, but feel you pain.You have made me a better parent in a week. I Thank you for that.

  3. Karen Kurdziel of the Sun Press

    You should be ashamed of yourself, but you probably don’t have the heart for it.

  4. That’s appalling. I’m so sorry. As a journalist, I know, there is no way the paper can justify its actions as anything but selfish and bottom-feeding and unbelievably insensitive.

  5. I am so sorry this happened. I could be wrong, but I think it’s a violation of your copyright for them to publish a photo that belongs to you in their paper without permission….

    And if they’re trying to give you the ‘public figure’ routine, then they should’ve read your entries where you specifically said WHY you were not publishing her photo.

    What a crappy thing to do.

  6. The use of the photo must be a copyright violation. IANAL. Who should we send letters of complaint to? I don’t know the Ohio(?) area well enough.

    I’m sorry for what you’re going through. But I do thank you for sharing what you do, in your own timing.

  7. No, Dan, you are wrong, you are sharing things here with each of us in a very private, very intimate way, the medium just happens to be public. If the report got her information from the blog, as she appears to have, she would have realized that. She is a cold, heartless person and does not deserve to have a job with any reputable publication. My heart goes out to you and your family.

  8. For those who want to contact the Sun News directly with their complaints, the President/CEO is John M. Urbancich. His e-mail address is jurbanchich@sunnews.com

  9. Daniel and Kim,

    We have never met, but our son was in Elena’s class, and we simply cannot stay silent in the face of the Sun Press’ assault on your family today. Today we wrote the following letter to the Sun Press:

    “They told you in plain English that they chose not to speak to reporters and not to publish any pictures of their daughter. You obviously heard them. You admit as much in your newspaper. But you not only ignored their wishes, you disrespected them by lifting pictures from the program and using it without permission. This is unforgivable — probably illegal. Why, knowing how the parents felt, would you disrespect them and your entire readership in this way?

    The Steinbergs probably have too much class to sue the newspaper for the emotional distress that you have caused them, and for misappropriating a picture of their daughter for your own commercial use, but I wish they would. It would teach you a lesson about journalistic integrity. And about respect for the members of the community who support your generally decent reporting. But this time you have truly acted in a despicable manner. You should be ashamed.”

    Our thoughts are with you during these difficult times.

    Morris Wheeler and Joanne Cohen
    Shaker Heights Residents
    Parents of a Classmate of Elena Steinberg

  10. The correct email address:

    jurbancich@sunnews.com

  11. As a trained journalist, I believe that this would constitute an invasion of privacy—as it is most doubtful that Elena would qualify as a public figure. Their use of the photo is also most likely illegal at worst, unethical at best. Since Elena doesn’t qualify as a public figure, use of her photo against the specific wishes of the family is unauthorized. I would also say, given what you have posted in your blog, Dear Elena, the paper acted with a complete disregard for your family.

    While I believe this country is overly litigious, this is one instance where a good lawyer would be warranted. I would also agree with Ralph.

    The Sun News should print an apology at a minimum, and the reporter should be fired.

  12. Sorry that this happened and sorry, for your sake, that I was extensively misquoted in the article — most hurtfully about the remarks made by Elena’s grandmother. You continue to be in all of our thoughts and prayers.
    Fr. Gary Chmura
    Our Lady of Peace

  13. I live no where near you, nor do I know you or anyone involved here, but I am certain that no pure motives were held by the author of this story. It is NEVER about the person…it is always about the STORY and the READERSHIP that will hopefully increase as a result of reporting a heartbreaking story—YOUR daughter’s story, HER life, YOUR life…it’s just shameless.

  14. For anyone who wishes to contact Karen Kurdziel directly, her email address is kskurdziel@yahoo.com. Or better yet…Give her a friendly phone-call at her desk at the Sun Press office at 216-986-5979. She should be ashamed of herself…a family grieving so much this week needed this to deal with??

  15. Sorry about the incorrect phone number…It’s 216-986-5479.

  16. Dear Mr and Mrs Steinberg,
    I am so sorry that someone would think to do something like this while you are still grieving, and after specifically telling press to go away. I am a 13 year old carrier for the sun press, and am considering quitting my paper route job to show disgust for the newspaper.
    Isabella McKnight

  17. Dear Kim and Daniel,
    I don’t know you personally, but as a parent of Boulevard alumni and as an Our Lady of Peace parishioner I was appalled to see your privacy and dignity invaded in today’s Sun Press. You have my deepest sympathy on the loss of your daughter, and I am angered that the Sun Press completely disregarded your wishes and printed her photo. I can’t imagine your pain, and I am sorry that the paper couldn’t respect the boundaries of a grieving family. It is terrible that they had to invade privacy and trade on one family’s tragedy in an attempt to sell more papers.
    Again, my deepest sympathy to you and your family.
    Debbie Sords

  18. I didn’t see the story in print, but as a parent my heart goes out to the Steinbergs.

    Though it’s possible the journalist here was simply being exploitive, the press routinely reports cases where children are suspected to have diseases like bacterial meningitis because they’re a public health risk. Health and school officials are notified so they can determine if anyone else has contracted the disease and minimize its spread.

    So when Elena’s tragedy was told in those original news reports and brought to heart-wrenching focus by her father’s blog, I think somebody in the local press was going to attempt to humanize the story.

  19. WE ARE SHOCKED YET NOT, WE DID NOT GO ON LINE TO READ HER STORY WITH RESPECT FOR YOU AND KIM. YOUR WRITINGS HAVE KEPT US CLOSE TO YOUR FAMILY AND ELENA’S MEMORY. IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR US NOT BEING ABLE TO GET HOME FOR SUNDAY AND MONDAY. I STAY GLUED TO THE COMPUTER READING YOUR STORIES AND MEMORIES AND THE BEAUTIFUL SUPPORTIVE YET THANKFUL RESPONSES THAT YOU CONTINUE TO RECEIVE.

    WHAT THIS KAREN FROM THE SUN PRESS DID WAS WRONG AND I AM SURE SHE WILL RECEIVE MANY EMAILS, LETTERS AND PHONE CALLS AS WELL AS HER EDITOR IN CHARGE. I HOPE SHE CAN FIND HERSELF TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU, YOUR FAMILY AND THE COMMUNITY THAT HAS SUPPORTED AND RESPECTED YOUR WISHES..

    PLEASE DO NOT STOP WRITING…..YOU TRULY ARE AN AMAZING STRONG FATHER AND HUSBAND…..

  20. From the initial seven paragraphs of the story published on the Sun News web site, I can’t imagine what could have been in the remainder of the story that would cause such offense.

    The incipient virtual lynch mob (complete with wrong phone numbers) is troubling.

    The “trained reporters” commenting here should swivel their chairs around, grab their Associated Press Stylebook off the bookshelf, and reread the “Briefing on Media Law” appendix to refresh their memories.

  21. I’m saddened that this site, which has touched us all, has now spawned such virulent personal attacks on the reporter. Like others, I’ve worked in media. Does anyone think a reporter just chooses to do a story or is free to walk away? Stories are assigned. Reporters are employees, not bosses. There’s pain now, for sure, for this family. But scapegoating the reporter is just ugly and not the answer.

  22. I so didn’t want to comment but . . . a reporter doesn’t usually get to “choose” their story but they certainly can choose how they put together the article and the material that they use in the article. It’s not scapegoating it’s stating a fact. She appropriated someone elses written material without permission. FACT And used a personal photograph without permission. FACT She misquoted principals in the article (see entry above) FACT. How is this scapegoating?

  23. Your entry about the surprise you and your family felt when opening the paper is understandable. I am sorry you had to experience this, especially when your wishes were quite clear through your blog and told to people receiving their programs as they entered the church to mourn with you. I can only point to the Society of Professional Journalists to explain why the Sun News should have used more discretion in their commentary about Elena. I believe it was a commentary as no actual person quoted was actually interviewed. The information below is from their website about ethical journalists.

    Minimize Harm
    Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
    Journalists should:
    • Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
    • Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
    • Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
    • Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
    • Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
    • Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
    • Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
    • Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

  24. I returned to the site and am still stunned. The words in the blog and the photo were in the public domain, regardless of the subjective reason they were put there. Subjectively, a person might open all the windows and turn on the lights in the house because they like it, but you can’t then complain that “this is within the privacy of my house” when anyone can see from the public sidewalk. Lawyers routinely say that, in such a case, there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy.”
    Here, regardless of subjective wishes, there is “reasonable expectation of privacy” in material available to the world online or pictures in a free program. Again, you may wish this weren’t so and even ask that people don’t look into the open window, but that isn’t reasonable and a newspaper is well-within its ethical rights to use public information.
    Copyright law looks to whether a party asserting a proprietary right to something has acted consistently with that claim, or has made claims while acting differently.
    I am still deeply concerned that intelligent, caring people are still in a lynch-mob mentality concerning a reporter that, whatever you think of the news value of the story, acted properly. Re-read Daniel’s opening piece here. He admmits that the reporter got everything from this blog. That’s why there aren’t any new interviews.
    Blogging’s a wonderful, new world. But the issue here is whether, having put things out for the whole world, you can then complain that you didn’t like how that information was used.

  25. I returned to the site and am still stunned. The words in the blog and the photo were in the public domain, regardless of the subjective reason they were put there. Subjectively, a person might open all the windows and turn on the lights in the house because they like it, but you can’t then complain that “this is within the privacy of my house” when anyone can see from the public sidewalk. Lawyers routinely say that, in such a case, there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy.”
    Here, regardless of subjective wishes, there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in material available to the world online or pictures in a free program. Again, you may wish this weren’t so and even ask that people don’t look into the open window, but that isn’t reasonable and a newspaper is well-within its ethical rights to use public information.
    Copyright law looks to whether a party asserting a proprietary right to something has acted consistently with that claim, or has made claims while acting differently.
    I am still deeply concerned that intelligent, caring people are still in a lynch-mob mentality concerning a reporter that, whatever you think of the news value of the story, acted properly. Re-read Daniel’s opening piece here. He admmits that the reporter got everything from this blog. That’s why there aren’t any new interviews.
    Blogging’s a wonderful, new world. But the issue here is whether, having put things out for the whole world, you can then complain that you didn’t like how that information was used.

  26. To Media Vet: What I love about blogs is that they are a way to express your feelings and thoughts on your own terms. While this is in the public domain, and MANY bloggers have linked-to and personalized this story to themselves. However, Daniel never posted one picture of Elena, thus, the thing violated was NOT in the public domain. Unless of course, you want the pictures of YOUR loved ones to be stolen from the front of the program at their funeral.

    Daniel: Thanks for sharing your words here, they have been comforting to many. My friends are burying their 4-month-old today (he died last Satuday). I sing at the funeral today at 1 p.m., it will be hard, but you have reminded me that life is short and to take nothing for granted. I think your words will help me to give to the family and help them get through this moment.

  27. This is not the place for a debate on journalistic integrity, it’s not the place for attacks on either side, it is not the place for judging anything. It is certainly not the place to talk about copyright law, or the impact of blogging. Daniel is expressing his feelings, emotions, grief and anger. He is entitled to every single letter of it. No one should be passing judgement on whether what he is feeling is right, wrong, justified, logical, anything. In this matter those of us who do not know Daniel and Kim should not be using this as a forum to express anything other than support for what they are going through.

    I have never met Daniel or Kim. Like many people, I come here as a parent who does not want to imagine the grief that they are experiencing. I am here to listen to him talk and get through this, an anonymous shoulder to cry on. It is not my place to weigh in on this. And I would really like to see other people stop the debate. Take it somewhere else, but this can’t help here.

    Daniel, my thoughts are with you and your family. Like the hundreds of strangers who are reading in silence, your words have brought tears to my eyes, and made me cherish every fleeting moment I have with my children. When you said that you were glad that you were not to busy to take Elena’s last phone call, it really resonated with me. I try so hard not to brush my children off, but now it has become critically important.

    I’m going back to the silent crowd now, but know that as long as you need to talk, we are here to listen.

  28. I’m sorry to be so particular here, but precision counts. The photo was in the public domain. It was a non-commercial photo used in a free program given to the public in not-for-profit setting. Check the law.

    My point is not to deny that the Steinbergs’ subjective intent with the picture or the blog, but to point out that a specific, subjective intent does not govern what someone else may lawfully do with something put out for free to the public.

    Again, this may be an unintended consequence, but it is neither illegal nor unethical. It was a logical and reasonable consequence of putting the picture out, as it was with writing the blog, not sending private email.

    The words on this blog were not “stolen” and the picture in the program likewise was not “stolen”. The insistence by some here to the contrary is raw emotion talking, not an honest look at the facts.

    I continue to feel the frightening sense of a lynch mob in some of this. Lynch her now, trial later. Don’t bother me with the facts.

    Again, I do understand the Steinbergs did not want or wish this, but, given that they chose to put words and pictures in the public domain, we cannot savage a reporter who chose not to confront family members for interviews or snap pictures in church, but wrote the story based on the Steinbergs own words and a picture placed in a public forum.

    As much as that will make some here uncomfortable, that shows professionalism, discretion and courtesy. People all over the world have been reading this story, people who know the Steinbergs and those who don’t, people who were invited to this site or those that were just linked to it as I was.

    For those residents of Shaker Heights who aren’t online, or who couldn’t go the funeral, the older and poorer especially, it was the newspaper, not the blog or the funeral itself,
    that brought them that story. That’s what newspapers do. And they did this one properly.

  29. Media Vet: enough. This is not about you. Get it? I can’t help but feel that you have some personal connection to this article (on the Sun Press side) you seem very defensive. No one is out to lynch anyone we just feel incredible pain and sadness over the uneccessary hurt this article has inflicted upon the family. Start your own blog on freedom of the press if you must but common decency should have a role in the press and in blogs. One last parting thought, the freedom works both ways we are also free to criticize the press and to let those feeling be know be it through email, letters or phone calls. That’s our right too. A paper/reporters are also in the public domain and as such put themselves out there for that kind of confrontation. It’s part of the job.

  30. Yes, Mom, get over it indeed. Who is being defensive here? Common decency cuts both ways.

  31. Dear MediaVet:

    You must not be a “media vet” given this erroneous statement:

    The words in the blog and the photo were in the public domain, regardless of the subjective reason they were put there.

    Your assertion is such a erroneous misstatement of copyright law that I am stunned.

    THESE words (that I type) are mine.

    The words of the blog author are HIS.

    Just because words (or images) are public does NOT make them public domain. If it did — Getty Images would have a devil of a time collecting money. Ditto AP.

    And no, one does NOT have to say “copyright” on a blog to “claim” it.

    Also, the fact that you failed to respond to the SPJ code of ethics is telling. Are you Karen in disguise?

    To Elena’s family – I offer my heartfelt condolances. I just buried my mother, so I understand grief. And I also know that I cannot understand the pain you must be experiencing.

    Kathy
    (who knows Jill)

  32. I am not going to argue the legalities of the situation. Media Vet may be right or wrong about the legal issues. But when Media Vet said “it is neither illegal nor unethical”, I must disagree with the unethical portion of the statement. It may not be unethical to you Media Vet, but to me it was the pinnacle of unethical behavior. Causing someone pain when they ask you not to is unethical. To do that to grieving parents and other family members and friends is contemptible, it is too low to describe.

  33. Sadly, “media vet’s” attitude is all too common in his profession. It’s the attitude of “because we can, we should” and the “public has a right to know.” Others defended the reporter’s actions because she was “just doing her job.”

    Just doing your job isn’t justification for invading someone’s life during a time of grief.

    Daniel, I was put in a similar situation when my mother died. Because of the circumstances of her death, my family’s grief was exposed to a public venue in the least sensitive way possible. It really sucks.

    I applaud the dignity with which you’ve handled the situation, the dignity which the Sun Press obviously lacks.

  34. I remain a bit stunned by all this.

    First, it’s true that technically the words on the blog are subject to general copyright protection, but, when placed before the public, are subject to the “fair use” doctrine. Being quoted in a newspaper story is textbook fair use. The Sun story correctly attributed the quotes to the source (the blog) and so was fully legal.That’s what I meant about being in the public domain. I suppose people who don’t know the law can think what they want, but that is the law. Check your newspaper and see how many news stories quote websites and blogs.

    Second, a newspaper’s job is to cover the community. Elana’s death was news. Just look at other Cleveland media. Just look at the crowd at the funeral.

    The paper here was discrete and dignified and fully in conformity with the code of ethics that was cited. No approaching the family for interviews, no badgering friends or classmates. The story was done only with material on the blog, the words spoken in public at the funeral and the photo used on the program, so there was nothing in that story that the family didn’t put forward already.

    Third, the family’s wish to not have this story reported might have some weight if they didn’t put it on the Internet for the whole world. Or rather, for the wealthy part of the world with access to the net. Shaker has a large concentration of poor. Do they not get to read the story we all have read here? Do those who could not go the funeral not get to learn about that? I understand those posting here disagree, but what you disagree with is the basic core idea of a newspaper as the common source of news for a community, not news being resitricted to those online or who can appear at an event.

    I still don’t understand the anger at the newspaper for reporting to the people of Shaker Heights — classmates, neighbors and friends — only what the family made available to the world on the web or allowed to be spoken or shown at the large, public funeral. How was that an invasion of privacy?

    Finally, I have not attacked any people posting here personally. I apologize for my flip remark in an earlier posting directed to an individual. That was unkind and I regret that.

    But the news reporter here has been savaged by name, with call to have her fired, her phone number and email given out while I’m told to “show some common decency” or attacked.

    For what it’s worth, I’m retired from a career in both print and broadcast journalism and now teach, among other things. I’m sure the Sun Press and the reporter can speak for themselves. But I felt both of them were being wronged here and “common decency” means taking the time to learn the facts before trashing the reporter as a “cold, heartless person”. who must resign or be fired, for doing such “contemptible” things.

    Blogs are great for letting people instantly give vent to feelings. But they should also be places where we can learn from each other.

    As the result of natural sympathy with the Syeinbergs, and, I fear, as the result of general low opinion of reporters, I was afraid people were here not seeing this correctly from my perspective and were seeing the reporter as a punching bag, not a person.

    I didn’t write or edit the story, but I read it. As I said, and I again ask you to consider, there was no “pursuit” of anything or anyone. The Steinbergs were not acting as “private” persons seeking to control their personal story when they put it on the web. The fact that we are all here and all know that story should say something. The newspaper story was dignified and respectful, careful to quote the blog and attribute the quotes to it.

    It was legal and ethical. I live in Shaker Heights and this was news. The crowd at the funeral speaks to that and not everyone reads blogs or is even online.

    I’ve said my piece. I appreciate being able to do that here and, as a “media vet” and a part-time teacher, I’m glad for the chance to learn from your reactions about the very hostile world we ask journalists to work in. Most of them, truly, work very hard in your interest to do a tough job.

  35. I should only add for the individual who chided me on the photo not being public, citing the examples of the Getty or the AP, that, as I said earlier, the photo here was (1) a non-commercial pic (not taken by a professional photographer or sold as a commercial item); (2) distributed to the general public; at (3) a free event at which no admission was charged or fee collected. As such, the use of the photo was both legal and, since it was availble to be seen by anyone who might have come into the church that day or those who would have seen it later, fully ethical.

    I wanted to be sure that issue was addressed.

  36. Media Vet: I’m not sure you are doing much to elevate the “general low opinion of reporters.”

    I found this part of one of your many entries quite telling:

    ” . . . I was afraid people were here not seeing this correctly from my perspective and were seeing the reporter as a punching bag, not a person.”

    That’s it isn’t? That’s the real reason you can’t seem to just leave it alone. We just don’t agree with you and for some reason this drives you nuts.

    Dad is that you? 🙂

    So I guess if it makes you feel better . . .yes this was ethical (DICTIONARY: rules of conduct in a profession–in this case journalism) and legal.

    But was it really the RIGHT thing to do in this situation? MY OPINION, no. Several other opinions, no. Yours and at least one other guy, yes. Different opinions. The opinion of the family and this BLOG owner’s opinion, no. So is this the right forum for you to be so vehemently championing the right of the media to intrude into the lives of people that don’t wish to be reported on? The fact that it’s legal and by the dictionary meaning of the word, ethical doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

    I challenge you to go back and read this entry again. Read it as the father writing this entry. Really put yourself/yourselves in his shoes or his wife’s or his daughter’s, would you care about the ethics or the legality? How would you feel? That is how I read the entry, that is how I responded to the entry. So many of us here are parents and it is just scary to know that as sad as we feel reading these entries and as upset as we get, it is just a small part of the pain that this family is feeling. This is the stuff that parents’ nightmares are made of, the ones that we don’t dare talk about for fear of having them come true. You know the one I mean. The one where you go to check on your child and they are not in their bed and you look everywhere and there is no child to be found. The Steinbergs are living this nightmare. Can you even fathom what that feels like without having been there?

    And yet you continue to quibble about legalities, as if that was the point. That is not the point. Its been said before but it just doesn’t seem to resonate with you.

    I won’t be commenting anymore so know that you will, in fact, have the last words since I know you won’t be able to resist.

    Truly, I hope you some day are able to find a portion of the grace that Mr. Steinberg has shown here in his blog. By not commenting I feel that I’m working on achieving some of that grace myself.

  37. I venture this response, knowing my motives have already been judged impure as to all things, to say that this thread has been, in my opinion, the perfect forum for this discussion. The originating point was a direct assault on the newspaper and a given journalist by name. Explaining why I thought they were correct was entirely in keeping with the subject and not the interjection of something new or personal to me.

    I was just attempting to be modest and civil with my conclusions when saying that I felt people were not seeing things correctly “in my opinion.” I regret that this attempt failed in at least one case.

    We all are trying to live with grace and dignity, including the press. I am sorry that they seem to be excluded from any comapssion or fairness in some eyes.

    And that the wish to walk in another’s shoes doesn’t extend to them, too, if just to see things afresh.

  38. Can the feud between media vet and shaker mom please stop? As a close friend of the family it’s becoming offensive.

  39. stress affect a person

    I know you said you didn’t want . . . but | Dear Elena


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: