The following is a Counterpoint:
By Sherri Staton
Doug Clark must be out of editorial ideas. His Aug. 31 column is the most pathetic excuse for journalism I have ever read. More than a year after Randall Terry's death, he has chosen to write an entire column on the reasons he did not like Terry. He insulted Terry's character, even to those of us who did not know him personally. What brought this on?
Clark disagrees with the way Terry allocated his money: to the College of Veterinary Medicine at N.C. State University, and to Woodberry Forest School.
If the column had been written based on this topic alone, it would have been a simple article of personal opinion. Clark takes his writing to such a disrespectful level that it makes his credentials as a journalist wilt.
Granted, Terry's money could have been spread out into the High Point community to help many other organizations; that is one point on which I have to agree with Clark. Yes, Terry left money for the care of his dogs. I wish he would have left some money to our local animal shelters. But, after all, it was his money to do with as he pleased, regardless of how he obtained it.
My lack of respect for Clark stems from his lack of respect for those who have passed on. Could he really not think of anything else to write about, so he had to degrade a dead man? What purpose did the "company picnic" story serve?
Clark sounds like a whining child, saying, "He could be mean." If Randall Terry was "mean," and a bigot, as Clark alleges, where were these accusations during Clark's "two decades" with the High Point Enterprise?
Clark provides no substantial backing for his statement that a long-time editor was fired while recovering from a heart attack. He goes further to say Terry was "boasting about it, quite pleased with himself." This is complete hearsay on Clark's part, and, true or not, Terry is not here to defend himself or explain his actions or comments. I felt I was reading the nasty sound of bitter revenge.
Doug Clark would not have had the guts to write this column in the days after Randall Terry's death, but writing it a year later doesn't change the fact that it is disrespectful. I would be interested to know why, after all this time, he decided to express his dislike for a man who has passed away. It is public knowledge where Terry's money is going and Clark has every right to disagree with these facts. To personally attack a person after his death is an abuse of Clark's position as a journalist. And it seems his column didn't change a thing.
Pretty low, Doug, pretty low.
The writer lives in Archdale.