Nick,

I endorse your commitment to making watchdog journalism a priority. That's as it should be.

However, there is one subject that almost inevitably leads to tension between publisher and editor.

What happens if and when you and Terry Williams are at opposite poles on a major civic issue that involves the City of Nashua, or the Greater Nashua region?

Publishers very often are "boosterish" about the city and region they cover. A new stadium, buying the water works, building an arts center, tax assessments, clearing a path for a superhighway to increase commerce.

On the other hand, news editors very often are skeptical about the same issues, and ask hard questions that the boosters would prefer not be asked.

Publishers very often meet and greet those who have power and influence in a city/region. But editors don't, or should do so cautiously.

So what happens when the irresistable force meets the immovable object?

And, of course, it's not a level playing field. Ultimately, the publisher has the power.

Just curious.

Kirby:

You've drawn up an interesting hypothetical that lays out the inherent conflict between publisher and editor -- whether here at The Telegraph or at any other newspaper in the country. Still, having worked with Terry for nearly 25 years -- first at The Sun of Lowell, Mass., and then here -- I can assure you that's not something that keeps me awake nights. Terry started his career as a reporter, and his route to the publisher's office went directly through the newsroom. As such, he has a first-hand understanding of the invisible barrier that separates the publisher's office from the newsroom. In other words, based on our history together, the next time Terry exerts influence to spike a news story will be the first time. Hope this helps to put your mind at ease.

Nick,

When I read yesterday's Telegraph, I was again reminded of why I am still addicted to the pleasures of reading an acutal newspaper, as opposed to persusing the Web version. Not that there's any thing wrong with that, as Jerry Seinfeld would say.

The careful newspaper reader gains added value from the news, in my opinion. He can see how editors choose to give some stories more importance than others. He can happen on a story by chance, and be drawn into it, and learn something new. That's much harder to do on the Web.

Finally, powerful, insightful, and sometimes ironic connections can be made that provide great insight.

So, yesterday I read Hattie Bernstein's important article about how "a growing number of area residents, many of them elderly or disabled, are having difficulty getting rides to routine medical appointments."

I hadn't really thought about this before, and was once again dismayed at how this richest country in the world let's down its most vulnerable citizens by not providing much needed social services.

Then I read the editorial about Carmella LaSpada, Chuck Hagel, and the $1.5 million Moment of Remembrance.

In the span of 6 pages, a story and an editorial collided, and the reader, who has been thinking about the story, now encounters an editorial that correctly points out how over a million dollars has been wasted on a foolish folly, courtesy of a U.S. senator.

That brought me back to the moving front-page photo by Don Himsel, of Mary Alice Fullerton coming to the aid of Arthur Burke, who needed a ride to a medical appointment.

A $1.5 million boondoggle and a man who depends on the kindness of strangers to see a doctor.

Thanks for continuing to actually print copies of the papers. It helps me think.

Dear Nick,
Thanks for your watchdog approach to your paper's journalistic endevours.
I would like to see more stories with benevolent, helpfull investigations which would make the Telegraph an advocate for helpless people in seemingly hopeless situations.
Taking and emphasizing the side of the underdog, would be more of a public service than to spend too many words in an attempt to make balanced views.
Looking forward to reading more articles containing Watchdog Journalism.

Richard Tuniewicz