NPN Still Will Not Come Clean!

Editor’s note: Below is a) the response of NPN to my request that it apologize to Andrew Shelffo for insinuating that he was secretly acting on behalf of Cap Video by demanding that he declare that has not been, even though he long ago explained in public and at this blog why he changed his opinion about the anti-porn zoning ordinance that recently passed and b) my reply. See below
http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-are-doing-npn.html, and http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/npn-censorship-by-benign-neglect-im.html.

NPN’s Response:

Asking a journalist (even a citizen journalist) a relevant question about their motivations is just being a good investigator. By calling it "character assassination" you are discouraging free inquiry and short circuiting the feedback process between the media and the public. This does not serve free speech or quality journalism.I wasn't convinced by Andrew Shelffo's reasoning or yours about the basis for his arguments. I felt it important to press the question of a conflict of interest to get clarity on that important point.Mr. Shelffo's arrogant attitude towards our questions is not appropriate for someone who enjoys the privilege of having MassLive host their blog.

A.C.’s Reply:

Just how often are journalists put on the stand to defend their credibility without cause cited? It was not a relevant question unless NPN had a cited reason for asking Andrew in particular, as it has not questioned the integrity of anyone else in the debate, such as Bill Dwight. By not stating a reason justifying the question, NPN turned the question into an unfounded insinuation – an innuendo. It was dirty rhetorical question, and Andrew saw it for what it was.

In response to my asking NPN its reason for asking the question it claimed it just could not believe someone would change their minds after looking into the anti-porn rhetoric more critically than NPN does. Pretty lame reason. So lame that it makes me wonder if NPN really did have a valid reason to ask the question when they went after Andrew, other than to silence him by leveling upon him a personal attack. As a father of young children who disagrees with NPN’s point of view living approximately no further from the proposed Cap Video store than NPN does, for NPN he is a particularly threatening figure in the debate.

Masslive can make its own decisions as to who should have the “privilege” of being hosted by them. Who is NPN to tell Masslive who it may host? Is NPN jealous that it is not hosted by Masslive or something?

Further, NPN continues to cover up the fact that it went after Mr. Shelffo even though Andrew had explained himself weeks ago before the council and on-line at my blog. It knew or should have known as the responsible "investigative" journalists they claim to be that Andrew had long ago explained himself and there was no reason to believe he was acting on behalf of Cap Video. Yet NPN still covers up its malfeasance and pretends to be so righteous as to preach to us journalist ethics!

Congratulations, NPN, you have joined the ranks of Rush Limbaugh and the like. What next for you, a show on Fox News?

All I asked is that NPN admit that it wronged Andrew and make an apology to restore its own honor and credibility; but it refuses.