Reference: Widow in a trance after killing, Sept. 18, 2010.
I have been an absorbed and patient subscriber to your newspaper for several years, having earlier bought newstand issues in order to maintain touch with local events. For the most part, the articles have been well researched and the publisher is to be commended for modifying the newspaper’s style as a means to encourage circulation.
However, I am amazed at the total lack of editorial professionalism which allowed use of the “f-bomb” within the referred article. Surely the paragraph could have been amended by way of inserting a substitute — for example, the parenthesized “expletive” — as a more appropriate way to describe how the woman shot her husband.
Does not the editor realise that the Advocate is read by people throughout the age spectrum — people who are now even more likely to believe that the use of vulgar slang in everyday language is fully acceptable, especially when the local newspaper condones the practice?
Come on, let’s insist upon a higher standard for what could be an even more attractive media format.
Editor’s note: The Advocate does not condone the use of profanities in its columns. The item mentioned appeared by mistake, and we will strive to be more vigilant against profane language.