This newspaper – The Washington Daily News – “The Voice of the Pamlico” – comes in for a fair amount of criticism. Most newspapers, wherever they may be, have critics.

I suspect that from the beginning of newspapers there have been those who find fault.

Some criticisms of our hometown paper have merit, depending upon one’s personal likes and dislikes; and some criticisms are not justified.

Just attempting to survive in print journalism in these times is daunting. The economics simply make for a very, very difficult task. This is just the way it is. If you can read and comprehend a P & L statement, then you understand.

Most of us are rarely ever associated, job-wise, with an enterprise that is so examined, so available, so visible as a newspaper. There it is, in plain view, warts and all. Have at it.

So, Bartow, have you appointed yourself the “Defender of the WDN”?

No. Not at all. There are suggestions I would offer, observations I would make, perhaps a criticism here and there. Such would only be my views, which may or may not be valid, or more important, feasible. We all are entitled to a viewpoint, are we not?

Let me say, emphatically, however, that I do not think you will find as much writing talent on a small daily paper as has the Daily News.

Mike Voss, Betty Mitchell Gray, Jonathan Clayborne, Christ Prokos, et al … these folks are good writers. Very good. Brian Haines is a formidable one-man sports department. The editorial writer(s) are very good.

The most vocal critics love to share their views … in the paper. Not many entities provide a forum whereby it can be criticized. That’s a bit of an irony, wouldn’t you say?

I am often reminded of a quote by Camus, which perhaps could apply to one’s feelings about the paper: “We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.”

Now, that bit of wisdom could apply to just about everything, couldn’t it?

By the way, how am I doing?