After reviewing letter to the editor submissions, emails, and social media posts about our recent coverage of the Elm Street emergency shelter, we pause to share a few thoughts.
The Concord Bridge believes it is imperative to listen to our readers — and that includes their criticism of our work. We accept that not every story will please every reader or approach an issue from the angle someone prefers.
We willingly publish letters that challenge our reporting, as you see on this page today and regularly. Fostering a civil but candid exchange of ideas is healthy for our democracy.
We do not, however, publish every letter we receive. We cannot allow this page — nor The Bridge’s official social media pages or the personal pages of individual staffers — to be misused by those we believe seek to distort our reporting or amplify falsehoods.
Our municipal reporter spoke with local volunteers last month for a story about their work with children at the shelter. In full keeping with our watchdog mission, he separately obtained and analyzed government documentation of shelter conditions.
Bridge reporting exposed official records showing that people who sought shelter in Concord were living in a place infested with cockroaches.
Read: State suspends Concord shelter arrivals after roach infestation
From our records requests, we learned of shelter residents’ complaints to the Concord Health Department about roaches and septic backups, the department’s attempts to improve living conditions at the shelter, and its concerns about the efficacy of actions taken to remediate the infestation.
It is entirely appropriate for this newspaper to ask — and for the state and its contractors to answer — questions about conditions in which families in need are housed while in Concord. Asking those questions does not denigrate or characterize shelter residents. It has, however, illuminated significant problems at their temporary home and efforts to fix those problems.
Our November 22 investigation made no mention of the national, racial, or ethnic background of any shelter resident. Those details are not relevant to the fact that the state leased the building as a place for people to live safely, but conditions had deteriorated to the point where the town of Concord declared the roach infestation a public health nuisance.
Days after this newspaper started asking questions, the state chose to pause new family arrivals while the infestation was addressed. As our reports detailed, infestations can exacerbate and spread illnesses. That roaches may be found in many high-occupancy buildings does not make an infestation of this documented severity less serious.
The Concord Bridge is not here to sensationalize. We are also not here to ignore or downplay serious problems — particularly when exposing those problems could lead to accountability and improvements.
Read: Damaged sinks and toilets, peeling paint, on inspectors’ lists
The Bridge has discussed shelter conditions with more residents than we have identified in our stories. Some asked not to be named for fear of serious repercussions, such as losing their housing. While the newspaper’s general policy is to avoid using unnamed sources, after careful consideration, we determined it was merited in this case.
Read: Shelter volunteers highlight community support for families
We will continue reporting on this and other controversial matters fairly and unflinchingly. We will continue to listen to constructive criticism. But to serve our community and uphold our mission, we cannot be deterred by messages that are purely accusatory rather than fact-based and illuminating.
Read: Shelter’s future in play after state policy update
Thank you, as always, for your trust and support as we strive to cover Concord with fairness and accuracy.
