Taking issue with coverage of Hemmelgarn (05/01/08)

To the editor:

This is in response to the recent articles and editorial The Commercial Review has printed about my husband Greg Hemmelgarn.

I have sat here for weeks hearing from others about what was printed, and I feel a sense of responsibility to my husband's honor to retort to your obvious one-sided reporting regarding my husband.

I don't remember The Commercial Review ever contacting us to ask questions regarding the allegations that were made in 2006; to hear the other side of "your" story. The word allegation does not imply guilt, but for some reason the editor seems not to know the two words are not synonymous.

It's unfortunate The Commercial Review has to rely on allegations to create stories to fill the pages of a paper that is void of any real news. When did the justice system grant The Commercial Review or the editor the power to become the jury to decide the truth of an allegation? I believe it is the paper's position to report facts and only facts.

The reports are completely biased views of one editor writing to the entire community as truth. The style the editorial was written in has a deep-seeded, underlying context and implication that is strong to the reader that my husband is guilty, which in my opinion is irresponsible journalism. It is extremely disheartening that your readers would believe what is printed as the whole story, and I hope they do not. I am writing to let everyone know that it is only one side, and not to believe everything that is printed in this paper. There is a stark contrast of reporting facts and reporting opinions, and The Commercial Review has crossed the line towards tabloid reporting of fiction.

For the paper to question my husband's character is absurd. My husband is and always has been a man of character. Anyone who truly knows my husband knows he is a kind, caring and honest person.

To answer the question of why Greg would plea bargain if he really wasn't guilty, it was to protect his freedom from the possibility of what seven felonies could mean in regards to sentencing.

Another topic raised through your editorial was Greg want-ing to reduce this charge to a misdemeanor. It was not to attempt to regain his teaching license, but to regain his dignity and a sense the justice system worked.

As a paper, you have already decided the original sentence was too lenient. Again, who are you to decide? Do you know the facts of the case and allegations? How dare you imply an inappropriate sentence without having all of the information? I am tired of seeing such poor journalism with no factual basis.

My question is why does The Commercial Review feel it is their position to mislead the public? Is it a way to sell papers? I truly don't care about the opinion of the paper, but I do care about the opinion of the community. My husband has contributed much throughout his life here in Jay County. He is still the same person he always was; don't let the paper dissuade you into thinking otherwise.

Kelly Hemmelgarn

Portland

(Editor's note: The above letter is in regard to articles and an editorial regarding Hemmelgarn's husband, Greg, who pleaded guilty in August of 2006 to a class D felony count of disseminating material harmful to a minor for sending photos of himself via cell phone to a teenage girl. As part of a plea bargain, six other felony counts were dismissed. Greg Hemmelgarn, who served time in the Jay County Jail on the charge, requested in March that the charge he had pleaded guilty to be reduced to a misdemeanor. That request was withdrawn by Hemmelgarn's attorney several days before a scheduled hearing on April 3. The letter has been edited to meet CR guidelines for letters to the editor.)[[In-content Ad]]