Last week, the D&C declined to run a full-page ad criticizing Wegmans' egg farm, citing concern over the recent passing of Robert Wegman. That's not surprising -- advertising isn't editorial, and I'm sure the D&C rejects ads all the time. Nor is it shocking that we had to read about it in today's New York Times. We can't expect the D&C to write a story every time they refuse to run an advertisement.
No, what's really chickenshit about this whole debacle is how the D&C's "news" division handled the underlying story, which is that a small-town jury let the lead activist off with a slap on the wrist. The D&C ran a short "just the facts, ma'am" piece in Friday's section B. That story was written by a wire service reporter and neglects to interview either side or provide any other context for the reader. The only way the D&C could have done less to cover the activist's trial would be to ignore it entirely.
In contrast, the Times' story is 1100 words longer, and it was written by one of their own reporters, who managed to interview the major figures involved in the case. Not bad for a paper 300 miles from Rochester.
Perhaps the D&C staff was tuckered out after long weeks of writing ever more orgiastic panegyrics to the memory of the Wegman patriarch. Whatever their excuse, this is the second time in a month that they've been scooped by the Times on a local story.
