Yes, I think I would — if the circumstances that led to that person’s departure were, themselves, newsworthy at the time. And yes, in order to demonstrate why it is worth the coverage upon that person’s return, we would have to recap what made the person so noteworthy in the first place.

If Ted Haggard embarks on a life of selling insurance or writing books or building houses, I can’t see much reason for continued Gazette coverage. If he returns to the pulpit, however . . . .

Would you do it if some other citizen who disgraced his place of business returned to the Springs you would do the same? And would you rehash the old news that led to his downfall?

He is now a private citizen and needs to be left alone. This is just my opinion.

Mack,
Sources get to decide whether to comment. Editors get to decide whether to publish. You get to decide whether editors make the right decision. In this editor’s view, Haggard’s return to Colorado Springs, apparently to take up residence again, is newsworthy and deserves to be published. When that decision is made by editors, fairness dictates that the subject be given an opportunity to comment. Mr. Haggard declined, as is his right. His decision to say nothing needs to be reported, so that readers understand he was given the opportunity, but that doesn’t mean Mr. Haggard has control over whether the news gets reported. As I wrote in the original post, now that Haggard’s return has been reported, the media need to think about how newsworthy he remains.

Please do something about it!!

When there was no comment from Mr. Haggard, then the story should have stopped there. The rehashing of old news was unnecessary, and I wonder what the true motivation was in this.