I was surprised to read the lead front-page headline on Jan. 24, “Collins unveils details of ACA alternative.” Could it be true that after all these years, the Republicans have actually come up with a detailed alternative to the Affordable Care Act?

Reading beyond the headline, it became clear that this was not the case. Before moving past the first page, I read that “many details have yet to emerge” and that it was “not clear how the proposed replacement would affect the … Americans … who currently purchase health insurance under the ACA.”

It was also “not immediately clear what a typical premium or deductible would be”; the reporter, Joe Lawlor, noted that the proposal “lacks some details on how it would operate.”

So why the misleading headline? The work of journalists is to get to the bottom of stories, ascertain and verify the facts as they are best able and present the information to the public in an honest and unbiased way. The headline that implied that there was some detail behind Collins’ “plan” was not true. A better headline would have been “Collins unveils sketchy/vague (take your pick) plan to replace ACA” or “Collins’ plan to replace ACA lacks details.”

It was interesting to see a letter to the editor in the same edition from Kurt Christiansen, who seemed to be accusing the Press Herald of being biased and advocated that the paper find an “elusive journalistic middle of the road” (else face extinction).

I sure hope that the fudged front-page headline Jan. 24 wasn’t an attempt at some “middle” way. Please stick to facts (which are not biased) and tell it like it is, which is real journalism. Do not worry if this reflects negatively or positively on the issue at hand. Your readers want to be informed and can make up their own minds.

Boris Svetlichny

Cape Elizabeth

Copy the Story Link