Fire Island lighthouse, Fox News and Jan. 6, and numbers in stories
High winds and heavy rains led to a sprayed concrete coating to separate from the Fire Island Lighthouse. Credit: Daniel Goodrich
Start needed repairs at iconic lighthouse
The area that was cut open for inspection at the Fire Island Lighthouse several years ago was left unprotected “Damage to tower studied,” News, March 7]. That has accelerated the deterioration to the outer layer of concrete.
The lighthouse was always covered by a thick layer of masonry (the tower was originally an ivory color). When they restored it in the early 1980s, that thick reinforced layer of cement was stripped away. It was replaced with a new system of sprayed shotcrete, which of course would not last forever but well over 30 years.
As a Fire Island builder, I feel that between the limited funds of the Fire Island Lighthouse Preservation Society and the bureaucracy of the federal government, this necessary repair has been put off too long.
The neglect has now caused a repair that will be way more costly than it would have been five years ago. Seeing it today is startling, and to describe it as peeling paint is just plain wrong. Let’s hope expert engineers and contractors will be brought in to get the necessary repairs started.
— Sam Wood, Kismet, Fire Island
Thomas F. Roberts III, my late husband, worked tirelessly for over 40 years as he formed and headed the Fire Island Lighthouse Preservation Society to successfully restore and relight the lighthouse.
It had been deemed structurally unsound and slated to be torn down since no government funds were available to maintain the beacon and structure. The private sector stepped in, and the rest is history.
Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world visit it each year. It is considered a maritime treasure.
I was appalled to read of the “sudden” closure due to dangerous falling debris, even though the situation was known by the National Park Service for more than a year.
We are now back to square one. Minor repairs have become major problems, with government red tape preventing anything ever done on a timely basis.
It is my hope that Long Islanders who agree will voice their outrage along with me. Let’s get the job done.
— Marilyn Miller Roberts, Bay Shore
Two views of Fox News and Jan. 6 recordings
A court brief has disclosed that emails, texts and depositions made by Fox News hosts Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Jeanine Pirro and even owner Rupert Murdoch disclosed they disbelieved former President Donald Trump’s rigged election conspiracy theories [“Fox using GOP video to amplify Jan. 6 lies,” Nation, March 8]. Were it not for a suit by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox, we likely would never know the deception of its “news” anchors.
Why does it matter? Fox commentators lied. The hosts publicly promoted the false election fraud charges to their viewers. Fearing viewer loss (and revenue and stock value), they mouthed fake news to their audience. Freedom of the press does not countenance lying.
Further, the momentum that Fox abetted apparently led to Trump and his supporters inviting an attempt to invalidate the election altogether. The Jan. 6 insurrection — the almost inconceivable attack on American democracy — is in part a result of fake news.
Carlson is now peddling that the Jan. 6 attack was mostly populated by “sightseers” “Carlson text on Trump: ‘I hate him passionately,’ ” Nation, March 9]. Fortunately, though, Fox’s culpability has been laid bare by real journalists using Fox’s own words.
— Hank Cierski, Port Jefferson Station
More than 40,000 hours of surveillance camera footage was recorded from the Jan. 6 event. At first, we, the public, were shown selective footage by the media, providing one perspective. Now, when Fox News’ Tucker Carson shows selective footage with a different perspective, it’s described as cherry-picked, edited and unethical journalism.
I guess it depends on who you think is telling the truth.
— Andrew Ross, Kings Park
How numbers slant stories' perspective
Regarding the column “Looking at life through the numbers” [Opinion, March 12], my biggest complaint is the media’s hyping numbers by usually relating them to multiple years.
For example, the $1.7 trillion infrastructure bill that was passed was over 10 years. The number was not broken down to $170 billion per year though the 10 years were mentioned.
This is true about many bills and other government statistics. The headlines create an overreaction from readers. Many read the headlines without checking story details.
— Rony Kessler, Franklin Square
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO JOIN OUR DAILY CONVERSATION. Email your opinion on the issues of the day to letters@newsday.com. Submissions should be no more than 200 words. Please provide your full name, hometown, phone numbers and any relevant expertise or affiliation. Include the headline and date of the article you are responding to. Letters become the property of Newsday and are edited for all media. Due to volume, readers are limited to one letter in print every 45 days. Published letters reflect the ratio received on each topic.
