Department of Corrections

Were the world a perfect place, there would be no need for editors. News content would flow freely from the fingertips of reporters with the ease a fluidity of the morning rain and corrections boxes would be a thing of the past.

More importantly, the oft-incorrect Saratogian would open up a plethora of space in their paper, now devoted to righting the wrongs that happen to slip past their editors on a semi-regular basis. Take Sunday’s paper for instance. Prominently featured inside was a nearly 300-word “correction” refuting the information reported in an article entitled “Breaking Their Ties.”

For those who missed the story, it basically accused church leaders of running an almost cult-like organization in the village. New Covenant operates businesses, has a strict dress code for its women, orders its members to abstain from medication and all but dictates the day-to-day lives of their members, among many things alleged in the article.

The main source used in the article was an estranged member, who accused her former congregates of trying to lure her children away. She said the meddling was bad enough that she eventually sought and won a court order barring church leaders from associating with her children. Surprisingly, church Pastor Tom Bowden didn’t offer a substantive rebuttal to the comments made by a former member of the flock.

Though unclear from the ensuing correction, it seemed quite obvious in the reporter didn’t level some of Ketchum’s rapier-pointed allegations against the church in his interview with the pastor. In fact, the pastor’s comments throughout the article seemed oddly milquetoast for a religious leader being all but characterized as the next Jim Jones in the weighted report. And from even a cursory read, even an untrained eye could readily identify the side was better represented in the story.

But even if the article was a brick house built on a match-stick foundation, the story was both a thought provoking and compelling read, perhaps giving a clue as to some of the bizarre religious sects that are sprouting up like crab grass in the spring. For instance, the notion that religious leaders are running several visible businesses –including a deli on the main drag –poses some interesting questions about the church’s practices. Are the businesses tax-exempt? Do they only employ members of the church? Where does the line between running a church and operating a commercial enterprise blur?

Yet the editors at the Saratogian clearly didn’t find it fit to answer these questions. Nor did they bother to ask why that the pastor had only addressed the main premise of the story in a roundabout way, which never really tackled the most severe charges levied against his church. They simply moved the article along, into print and onto the front page.

So the church’s rebuttal didn’t come as a shock. One would expect as much even if all Ketchum said about New Covenant was true. The level of rebuttal is what is bizarre and yet another example why the editorial leadership of the Saratogian should be sent packing once and for all.

See, if the editors sign off on an article, they are in essence giving their endorsement of the piece. The onus is on them to sift through it with a fine-eye and note any areas that should be strengthened or retooled. Once the article appears under the masthead, the article becomes a piece of the puzzle representing the entire newspaper’s credibility. For the Saratogian to outright admonish something they endorsed just seven days earlier speaks volumes for how much they support their own content.

More striking is the fact that the Saratogian pulled all online references to the article following the article-sized correction. The story was deleted from both the Saratogian’s Web-based archives and from regional archives. Even cached images of the story no longer exist on the Internet, meaning the paper was likely threatened with a rather nasty libel suit if they didn’t move swiftly to remove any traces of the story.