Re your news report, “Rumoured jail fears unfounded” (NDL, Saturday July 26. 

Is it rumoured “jail” or rumoured “fears”? 

How about some actual journalistic investigation and finding some facts instead of a “could” followed by an indication “that many of the negatives raised have failed to materialise” and lastly “there is likely to be little existing data”. 

How does a “could” followed by the ramble above constitute factual journalism. It’s pretty obvious that there are things that could easily be compared that would account for “Rumoured jail fears unfounded” (which looks significantly like a factual statement but followed by a big “could”) based on the Wellington example.

 What was the population of Wellington when the jail was built?

Was the real estate market buoyant at the time of the jail being built?

Is there a larger centre nearby that would be more attractive for the “undesirable” to live?  (This one would certainly take a professional journalist some time to investigate.)

And therefore the reason as to why the fears that go with a jail being built appear unfounded in Wellington. 

It does become offensive when you treat your readers like five year olds that are still mesmerised by pretty colours – and on that point – how about supplying a headline that is not purposely misleading.

 How about tackling the first fear of the jail being built. Ask a direct question such as “Has it been indicated, talked about or raised in any form of a proposed jail being built in Tamworth?”

You know that investigative journalistic stuff that is not brushed aside by an easily defendable answer of not having seen any plans. 

This could well be truthful, at this time, as there may be no plan, but that does not mean it has not been discussed or proposed.