His letter is posted below with my response.
[Dear Hugh]Subscription cancelled. Renewal offer declined. Service stopped at customer's request. As the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Times, my initial reaction to these words is to ask why? Who is responsible? How can we do better? Practically speaking, these are tough questions not easily answered.
And that is where you come in. I would very much like to know what prompted you to cancel your home delivery service. Please use the prepaid postcard attached for your response, and if you would, be as specific as possible in citing your reason (s).
I am keeping the Times door ajar for you, anticipating your return as a reader. If you decide to give us another try, I will personally see that you are credited with an additional two weeks free home delivery service. To take advantage of my offer be sure to check the box on your response card.
Regardless of what you decide about restarting the Times, I sincerely look forward to reading your comments and promise to share them with my colleagues.
Best regards,
Wesley Pruden
Editor-in-Chief
Mr. Wesley Pruden
The Washington Times
3600 New York Ave N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
Mr. Wesley Pruden
I am glad you asked me how you can do better.
I often know the news before the Washington Times. I also have the facts and report them with greater accuracy than the Times. I hand delivered a copy of Patrick Knowlton's lawsuit which was still under seal to editor Fran Coombs on the weekend before Mr. Knowlton's press conference on November 12th. You were out of town at the time.
The Associated Press carried the story on their wire service November 11, and the Washington Times still failed to pick up the story, even with the lawsuit in hand. I made sure that Jerry Seper had been given a "heads-up".
George Archibald did show up at the press conference on November 12. We have to give him credit for that. When Archibald's story appeared in the Times on November 13 it was buried on page four, and he got the facts all wrong. He is hopelessly overwhelmed by his job.
Here are just some examples of Mr. Archibald's reporting: "Mr. Foster's death was ruled a suicide by state and federal authorities..." Really? What state?
Mr. Archibald failed to identify Ken Starr's FBI agents who were named in the lawsuit. They were named on page one of the suit. How could he miss them? I only took one journalism course as college elective and I know about "who, what, where, when, how." It seems Archibald needs to take JO 101.
His worst blunder was that he forgot to mention the suspicious man that Patrick Knowlton saw at Fort Marcy Park. Mr. Archibald instead asked a dozen questions about the parking lot. How many spaces were there he wanted to know? How many spaces did Mr. Knowlton park from the right ? from the left? Whatever his salary is, you are definitely paying him too much Mr. Pruden.
I am sorry if I appear to be hard on Mr. Archibald but he should be embarrassed. How come I, the reader, know more about the story than he does? He is supposed to be the journalist. It should be no secret at the Washington Times that I know the Vincent Foster story well. Even Jerry Seper called me this fall and suggested that we "be friends." That is why I made sure he knew about the press conference in advance and I made sure your paper had a copy of the lawsuit before anyone else in town.
If Archibald or Seper or anyone else wants me to fact check a Foster story they only need to call me. I have all the documents, access to many witnesses and network with others who are knowledgeable. When the readers know more than the reporters you have a credibility problem. Your credibility is getting worse because the free and fast exchange of information on the INTERNET exposes incompetent reporting.
You and your paper are not effectively reporting the news. You barely managed to publish Patrick Knowlton's story and it was immediately forgotten in favor of lesser news and other distractions.
In a similar fashion, your paper published the fact that the Foster torn note was found to be a forgery in October of 1995. Then your staff immediately forgot it was ever reported. It looks like a "cover your tail" ploy so you can always say, "we reported that".
I may pick up your paper from time to time on the newsstand for amusement, but not for news. If you want to read the news, I recommend you visit the INTERNET and read my posts and those of my friends. We print the news first and we get it right.
I am more than just a lost subscriber. I am your competitor.
Kind regards,
cc: George Archibald