‘Good man’ deserved a pass


To the Editor:

What is news? In the case of Randhi Belain, I suspect your decision to defend your reportage in itself casts aspersions on that very defense, and puts this question squarely in play.

We, those of us here permanently, comprise a very small community, membership in which carries an imperative to be supportive of one another and understanding of the innocent failures of human nature we all, perhaps unfortunately, perhaps embarrassingly, display on occasion.

Your handling of this matter certainly lacks grace; and, in my book, is an abuse of your bully pulpit. Dragging the name of a good man through the mud is culpable sensationalism, not news.

James A. Glavin



  1. So, was it “…an innocent failures of human nature…” that led this person to an intoxication so severe he is credited with those actions 4 months ago, despite being employed to enforce the body of law prohibiting the same? Was it “an abuse of” Belains “bully pulpit” to phone up the Times, to intimidate them into dropping the story? Really?

    • Since when is asking that an article not be written considered an act of intimidation? Seems like you’re twisting the facts in you’re favor a little here

  2. Vineyarders supporting each other’s so called mistakes is what has made this Island a wasteland of drug and alcohol dependence,unaccountability,foreclosures,mooches and deadbeats,rampant crime and prodigious dysfunction. More are coming because we don’t have moral convictions and stand for nothing but banning plastic straws.

  3. Mr. Glavin, yours is the voice of enabling. Lots of good people abuse alcohol and drugs. No one should get a pass. It doesn’t matter how little or often one does it. It is a very bad role model for children to see and mimic. The best communities are those which are supportive, AND those which maintain the exact same standards for all. The Times is to be commended for the fair coverage they gave this story, despite all the dismissing by the small, “supportive” community of the Aquinnah Chief of Police’s drunken night out and the Tisbury police’s cover-up.

  4. edgyouth, this is when it is Intimidation (taken from a MA law website, “A jury must find that each one of these three elements – that the defendant did one of the above acts, that the act affected one of the persons described above, and that the defendant acted either willfully or recklessly – has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a defendant can be convicted of criminal intimidation.”
    The only element open to any interpretation, the 2nd, is easily met by the threshold of Times news editor having “reasonable apprehension “ that if he didn’t comply with the tearjerker excuse (“I am embarrassed “) harm in any form could be suffered. To an under-capitalized community newspaper, these are perfectly legitimate concerns. So, yes, I believe the Times was a target of intimidation. You can disagree and continue to support and conceal such behaviour but I for one am glad that in this entire merry band of characters, the Times were the only ones to whom ethical standards had meaning.

Comments are closed.

Previous articleMixed Media
Next articleSpeedy changes proposed to Upper Main Street in Edgartown