Let me say that I am a subscriber and much enjoy reading your newspaper with my two little dogs snuggled on either side of my knees.

Given the pressures put upon all newspapers, you folks do a great job of reporting on all levels. For that reason, I was somewhat disappointed with all the negative and unbalanced two-day coverage given Michael Hein, who is alleged to have kicked a 4-month-old puppy.

It seemed the newspaper was attempting to generate a public trial without the man first being tried in court.

The story read, “‘The male stopped and kicked the dog,’ Lully said.”

When I read that, I thought, “Officer Lully wasn’t there so how could he know if the dog was kicked?”

Then, following the two-day coverage, three days later, in a small correction on page A2, the newspaper printed a correction acknowledging the reporter’s “incorrect characterization of witness statements.” What a shame the correction could not have received equal coverage.


Rather than keep the focus on the alleged dog-kicking incidence, the newspaper found it necessary to dig up Hein’s disagreement with an employer and a seven-day jail sentence four years ago.

If the article were balanced, perhaps the report could have mentioned that Hein, a wartime veteran himself, works full-time serving veterans all over the state and is an active participant in his church and the American Legion.

This is America, and citizens are innocent until proven guilty no matter how heinous the crime of which they are accused.

Patrick Eisenhart


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.