Responding to Negative Newspaper Editorials... Do you or don't you?

So... your sitting in your favorite chair, reading the morning newspaper... As you go through the newspaper, you get to the editorial section and read the following:

"Whenever there's a vacancy in the city or county Fire Department, there are literally thousands of applicants for each position. Why? Because firefighters get high pay, fantastic benefits and unbelievably generous pensions, which start as early as age 50.

But the main reason is that firefighters work only 10 days per month. They are off a full three weeks each month. Yes, they do put in 24-hour days, but with so few emergencies to respond to, firefighters have plenty of time on their hands during each shift for reading, sleeping, video games, watching TV, etc.

Because a huge part of the city and county budgets go for fire protection, this is where deep budget cuts must be made. But people get nervous at the thought of laying off firefighters.

So, what to do? Simple: Increase their work month from 10 to 13 days, which will require fewer firefighters. This still will give them 18 days off each month, which is a heck of a lot more time off than many of us get.

Local firefighters might threaten to strike, but they can easily be replaced from those thousands of applicants. After all, what other occupation would offer full pay and benefits for working only 13 days per month?

But we'll have to elect fiscally conservative majorities to the City Council and county Board of Supervisors to get such a needed reform because the current liberal majorities are the pawns of the fire (and police) unions."

How would you respond to this or would you?
Do you think it is a good idea to just leave it alone?
Have you dealt with someone who does not like firefighters that writes editorial replies to the local newspaper

Feature: Notable Firefighter's Opinions...

Reply by Jack/dt

My opinion is that any response should come from above, either a Chief or the PIO. It becomes risky when someone from the rank and file decides to counter anti-firefighter editorials or sentiment. Angrily and/or poorly written letters can do more harm than good.

Update: What kind of replies did the local newspaper receive from the public?

03-30-10 Comments: Responding to a letter writer's comments about firefighters, let's do some math. He said a firefighter works 10, 24-hour shifts per month, equaling 2,880 hours yearly.

Suggesting they work 13 shifts per month, equates to 3,744 hours yearly, about 30 percent more. Not missing something in the letter, that would be with no pay hike. In comparison, typical 40-hour/week employees put in 2,080 hours yearly, meaning firefighters work more than a 9-to-5 employee. Is it fair to increase that?

Firefighters aren't out on emergency calls for their entire shift, but do have other responsibilities. They have vehicles and equipment to keep clean and maintained, and have housekeeping chores around the station.

Firefighters don't have janitorial services coming in, cleaning the station. It's their job. Remember, the station is their home. They also are required to attend ongoing training, sometimes during their shifts, but often it's on their off days. They also have community responsibilities. They perform citizen training and education, work fairs and open houses and perform inspections for residences and businesses.

Now, let's talk about major emergencies, as with the Gap or Jesusita fires, or La Conchita mudslide. Firefighters remain on duty 24/7 until released, whether it's days or weeks. Add that to their 2,880 hours yearly and it can go well beyond the 3,744.

They need our support, not making them a target for saving money. There are other places to look. Cutting firefighters would be detrimental to us all.

03-29-10 Comments: I have been watching with interest and curiosity the mess our local politicians have put us in. How many of our city politicians have rushed into a burning building to save a child or fallen through a collapsed roof while doing their duty? None.
As for our Police Department, I don't think any of our City Council members or our mayor have had a gun pointed at them or removed hazardous material from a school or any public building. I could go on and on. (Read the front page of the March 18 News-Press). Every day the police put their lives on the line for us. The mayor and City Council did not hesitate to give themselves a hefty raise plus bonuses when they should have given themselves a 25 percent cut. But they chose to possibly dump almost two dozen officers from the department.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on September 1, 2011 at 9:21am

What I'm trying to suggest is that we need to work with the media instead of just crucifying them

Where do you see this crucification of the media? The media is a form of free speech and people can use the media to express an opinion. If someone wants to write letter that they think FF's just sit around all day or take a job just so they only have to work 10 days a month is an opinion. It really is no different than someone expressing an opinion about politics. That is the issue here, such letters etc are opinions of the writer, the paper is just the medium, it isn't the responsibility of the paper to call for a fact check from the FD.....and what if they did? If the facts are wrong, and the paper doesn't print a letter or edits the letter in a way to change it, then it really is no longer the opinion of the writer. Then that opens a can of worms....do it for one, do it for all.....is that what is to happen? So next time someone has an opinion about politics, the paper calls the other party to confirm facts and subsequently change opinions? I don't think so.

Working with the media is fine and I also encourage it as well. However, there is a big difference between a reporter doing an article on the FD and that of the opinion from a letter to the editor. There is no reason that a paper should have to call and confirm an opinionated letter, with any source, before printing it. Afterall, a rebuttal can be made by another party that doesn't agree with said letter.

One of the key issues here is the high turn over of the field reporters in most areas. It's hard to develop relationships with people when they are constantly changing,

There is a big difference between a field reporter working on a story and that of a letter to the editor expressing an opinion. Even if you have a great working relationship with a couple field reporters, it doesn't mean they see, nor have input on such letters or op-ed pieces.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on September 1, 2011 at 10:54am

How does having a good relationship with the 'media' help in circumstances where a reporter ambushes an engine shopping for groceries? Should the PIO have first notified ALL the local media with a press release that "Engine 1 will be out shopping for their groceries today?"

Or what about ambushing a Chief about his personal use of a department vehicle that he was authorized to use?

The problem seems to be that, for whatever reason a 'reporter' will decide to follow (most often, create) a story that is designed to be controversial and increase viewer/readership.

Articles about wages, contracts, brownouts and closures are often written in a way that casts the fire department in a bad light. If the reporter were to first go to the department or union president, get their full side of the story and present it as a justifiable and fair request for wages, benefits, etc., there would be little story to write. On the other hand, if those taxpayers screaming bloody murder about lazy, union, parasite firefighters just wanting more money while everyone else is losing their jobs...well, it does make for a 'better' story.

The media is best treated like a strange dog, cautiously and counting your fingers after it sniffs your hand. When it's friendly, it presents the fire department in an 'heroic" light, such as when there is a LODD or a rescue. But because the media is essentially shameless it can then turn around and bite, presenting a story of greedy unions and underworked firefighters just sitting around and collecting huge paychecks and retirement. There is seldom any good will on the part of the media, after all that would imply some kind of bias. Rather, the media sees itself as neutral, taking neither side but as we all know, bias can and does easily creep into any story. It's about controversy.

Firefighters going into a school for a safety demonstration is a nice "fluff" piece and filler, shows the firefighters/department in a good light and makes for great PR, space/time permitting. But there will always be room for a story that shows that same department in a bad (greedy) light.

Sure, when the economy is humming along, employment is high, interest rates low and a general sense of well being, fire departments are innocuous. The Chief or PIO reaching out to a reporter for an article on why their budget needs to be increased or why new apparatus or stations need to be replaced are generally treated fairly. It's just when the worm turns and things are not going so well (as is presently the case), one might be hard pressed to find a reporter who would be willing to be a 'friend of the court.' After all, who wants to read about pay raises for firemen when their own pay (or job) has been cut?

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article528398.ece

http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/523...

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=10050

http://lasvegasbadger.blogspot.com/2011/01/another-reason-taxes-can...

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/opinion/slop/article_f8f15f86-5674-1...

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/fire-department-merger-idea-about-more-...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/ems-day1-cover.htm

http://catdefender.blogspot.com/2008/03/bone-lazy-mendacious-firefi...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andrew on September 2, 2011 at 10:09am

Sadly, if this editorial does make an effect and closes down houses, then something bad will happen and people will be up in arms once again screaming,"But where was the FD?!".

Where I live there were police near a marina of some sort. Due to funding, and a need for active patrol in other areas, they were moved, leaving the post vacant. A couple of weeks later a couple died in their house boat due to a CO alarm. By the time they were found it was too late. Then the news speculated that if the police had been at that post still then they could've saved them.

You cannot make everyone happy, even if you always do what is right in your mind. Most people don't even know that my department is all volunteer (for fire - we have paid first responding EMTs). There have been a handful of times when we have arrived on scene and have been asked "What took so long?". One time, at a MUTUAL AID, my Chief blocked off a road to let our truck back out since it was blocked in front by other apparatus. A woman, whom had to wait a mere 30 seconds for us to back out, rolled down her window and starts yelling racial obscenities at my Chief and started yelling,"I pay your salary!". I had to chuckle to myself a little bit. I wish we were paid, but we're not.

It boils down to that not everyone will be happy. However, despite what any person, or the media, will say, there are definitely people out there that appreciate what we do and are thankful for our help. Nothing feels better to me than a heart-warming "Thank You" from someone I've just helped.