I’m writing in response to three letters in last week’s paper accusing the reporter and the paper of bias in an article about a counter-suit to a lawsuit reported earlier (“High school principal’s lawyer claims Wright suit is retaliation,” Feb. 8). Let me be clear: I have no dog in this fight. I don’t know any of the people named in the story, nor any of the three letter-writers; nor have I any connection with The Beachcomber or the school district. I am writing only because I don’t agree that The Beachcomber and the reporter engaged in biased reporting.

As a retired journalist, journalism teacher and high school and college newspaper adviser myself, I see Fogt’s article as what we know in the trade as “straight news.” The writer is simply reporting what the lawsuit says, carefully using quotation marks when directly quoting and standard journalistic terms such as “alleges” and “according to” when paraphrasing.

My only criticism would be the word “exposed” when describing a practice by the clinic. If this was a direct quote from the attorney or the lawsuit, it should have been in quotes; otherwise it was simply an unfortunate choice of words. “Revealed” would have been better.

Fogt also provides background for the story, since it involves a counter-suit of a lawsuit that was also covered — objectively and in detail, I might add — in earlier stories. Providing the backstory to an article is standard journalistic practice and often necessary for readers to understand the issue.

When I was on my first job out of journalism school 50-some years ago, I wrote an article on two candidates for a local election. Both candidates’ campaign managers accused me of favoring the other candidate. I suspect this is a similar situation. As the saying goes, “If you don’t like the message, kill the messenger.” In newspapering, I guess, it just comes with the territory.

— Geoff Cole