The Scoot Inn
'Chronicle' Displays Audacity Placing Stories Next to Each Other
RECEIVED Mon., Jan. 23, 2012
Dear Editor,
I would like to respond to two articles placed next to each other on p.12 of the January 6 Austin Chronicle. The first being about the death of James Clayton [“Bicycle Thief Deceased,” News], where you begin the story with the phrase, "In a strange conclusion to a strange Austin news story ...,” this "story" being an article printed in 2009 about James Clayton pleading guilty to bike thefts [“The Bicycle Thief,” News, April, 10]. Your current article of 2012 is about his untimely death by heart attack at the age of 39. This is a man who spent time in prison paying for his crimes, and who no longer lived in Austin. The 2009 and 2012 articles have nothing to do with each other, thus I don't see how his death is a "conclusion" to a separate story done on him about bicycle theft years ago. If his death is somehow a conclusion to your 2009 article, this seems to imply that his death was somewhat justified.
And then you have the audacity to place this article in a box within the article about Esme Barrera's tragic death [“Barrera Death a Great Loss,” News]. You have disrespected both of these deaths by placing them next to each other because both of these persons' stories have nothing at all to do with each other. I don't know either of these people, and I'm not religious, but I simply have an old-fashioned belief that the dead cannot speak for themselves. So it is our responsibility to try, as much as it may pain us, to remember them as if we knew and loved them, if their crimes were in any way forgivable. My thoughts and prayers go out to the Barrera family, as well as every one that has been graced by her life.
After having written all this, it now occurs to me in a nutshell – the article on Esme Barrera is quite rightly written in a tone that suggests an unjustified death, while the article on James Clayton is quite wrongly written in a tone that suggests a justified death.
I would like to respond to two articles placed next to each other on p.12 of the January 6 Austin Chronicle. The first being about the death of James Clayton [“Bicycle Thief Deceased,” News], where you begin the story with the phrase, "In a strange conclusion to a strange Austin news story ...,” this "story" being an article printed in 2009 about James Clayton pleading guilty to bike thefts [“The Bicycle Thief,” News, April, 10]. Your current article of 2012 is about his untimely death by heart attack at the age of 39. This is a man who spent time in prison paying for his crimes, and who no longer lived in Austin. The 2009 and 2012 articles have nothing to do with each other, thus I don't see how his death is a "conclusion" to a separate story done on him about bicycle theft years ago. If his death is somehow a conclusion to your 2009 article, this seems to imply that his death was somewhat justified.
And then you have the audacity to place this article in a box within the article about Esme Barrera's tragic death [“Barrera Death a Great Loss,” News]. You have disrespected both of these deaths by placing them next to each other because both of these persons' stories have nothing at all to do with each other. I don't know either of these people, and I'm not religious, but I simply have an old-fashioned belief that the dead cannot speak for themselves. So it is our responsibility to try, as much as it may pain us, to remember them as if we knew and loved them, if their crimes were in any way forgivable. My thoughts and prayers go out to the Barrera family, as well as every one that has been graced by her life.
After having written all this, it now occurs to me in a nutshell – the article on Esme Barrera is quite rightly written in a tone that suggests an unjustified death, while the article on James Clayton is quite wrongly written in a tone that suggests a justified death.
Nic Walker