Last week, a horrible thing happened in Windham.

In our attempt to bring the details to our readers, we lost the perspective necessary when handling a sensitive story in a community newspaper.

When I go back and read the story, as I have many times in the past week, I see a heartbreaking portrait of people trying to come to grips with the loss of a loved and respected member of the community. Unfortunately, the headline did not reflect the story, and brought undue pain to people already dealing with more than their fair share. There were also financial details that while factual would have been better left out of a story that would appear online less than 24 hours after the incident.

I first heard of Peter Busque’s death Wednesday evening. Just an hour before, with the Lakes Region Weekly all but done for the week, I had gone home for the night. I called the office to double check on another story when I was told police found Peter’s body at his Nash Road quarry. Everyone here was shocked and saddened at the news. We knew that it would be a tough story to report, but Peter was the very definition of a public figure, so it was a story nonetheless. We took apart the front page and decided to get together what we could by the deadline early Thursday morning.

By the next morning, John Balentine, the paper’s editor, had reached a number of Peter’s friends and colleagues, all of whom were reeling from the news but willing to speak to Peter’s outgoing personality, affable nature, support of local business and love of Windham.

At the same time, we were receiving a lot of other information. We put in the story what we could verify, and discarded what we could not. With the deadline bearing down, our instincts told us to cover the story in a matter-of-fact manner, by stating what had happened Wednesday night and in the weeks preceding, and by including the reaction from Peter’s fellow councilors and community members. We would then begin work on a more complete story for the next issue regarding Peter’s contributions to the community, a story you can find on the front page of this week’s paper.

Told a police press release was imminent, we put the initial full story online, shocking some readers, who felt putting out the details that quickly was insensitive and speculative.

Our intention was not to sensationalize the story to move papers off the racks. Our goal was to simply tell the story, to inform people as they tried to make sense of this indescribable tragedy. Reporting the news – all the news, good, bad and ugly – can be messy. Each week we try to bring readers stories of substance and value. We try to explain and bring context to the issues facing the community. We chronicle successes, triumphs and, yes, tragedies. We get to know the people we cover, yet have to separate our personal feelings from the stories we write for the sake of fairness. In this case, we took that separation too far.

Through phone calls, letters, emails and online comments, many of you have disagreed with how we handled the story. It has caused us to look at how we covered the story and what we could have done differently. We accept that criticism and have provided space in this week’s paper for people to air their concern. It has been a painful learning experience for us all.

As a reporter, I covered the hearings regarding the Nash Road quarry. Peter and I would often talk outside during breaks, usually about Greenville, where he grew up and where I worked for a few years. He would tell me about his last trip to his “beloved alma mater” and we’d talk about mutual friends and acquaintances.

When talk turned to business, he was invariably open and honest, always with an abundance of wit and a sort of tired bemusement at the endless hours of testimony that marked the hearings. Whenever he went outside for a break, I would follow, hoping for good conversation and a bit of insight into the proceedings. You could disagree with his point of view, and sometimes with the manner in which he presented it, but I always felt like he was giving it straight.

To his credit, he would always offer his frank point of view. He never refused comment or asked to go off the record. He was proud that he was putting his energy and resources into a project that would provide a product necessary for development, and irked that people were trying to stop him. He felt that people should be reasonably free to work and build a business.

He carried that same attitude into politics when he won a seat on the Town Council and helped elect other like-minded residents. Together, they brought a new perspective to the council, offering up a number of new ideas, including using the local public access TV station to promote local businesses. It did not work out, but like many of his ideas it made people think about the connection between local government and local business.

In large part, he represented first and foremost local business owners, championing them at every opportunity, hoping to provide jobs for the town he cared about. Along the way, he built close relationships with members of the community, engendering a love and loyalty that has shown bright in the last week.

And that’s how he should be remembered.

Ben Bragdon is the managing editor of Current Publishing. He can be reached at [email protected] or followed on Twitter.