Dear Source:
An "October Surprise" is commonly defined as a last-minute political trick where purported "news" critical of a candidate is released shortly before an election with the intended goal of influencing the outcome of the election. For that reason, most news organizations decline to run such pieces in order to preserve at least the appearance of impartiality. The Avis has no such compunctions.
While no doubt intended as an October Surprise, the article in Sunday's Avis inaccurately titled, "Accused billionaire linked to VI candidate" comes in late October, but can hardly be considered surprising. The article suggests that John deJongh is tainted because his wife works for the Epstein Foundation, a charity owned by Jeffrey Epstein, who has been accused, but not convicted of, inappropriate contact with minors, notwithstanding that Mr. deJongh has not taken any campaign contributions from Epstein. All of this information has been known since July.
Recreating the Avis's "investigation," Googling the name "Cecile deJongh" shows, once you weed through all the other items relating to her charitable contributions to University of the Virgin Islands, Habitat for Humanity, and the United Way, a March 2006 article in the St. Thomas Source that states that she is the Director of the Epstein Foundation. To the extent that ever was a secret, which is unlikely, it certainly was not a secret as of March 2006. Moreover, a Google search of "Jeffrey Epstein" shows, among other tidbits like his friendship with Bill Clinton, that his arrest was widely publicized in July 2006. The Daily News ran an extensive article on the subject on July 27, 2006. Consequently, if this information is still "news" to the Avis in October, its investigative abilities are pretty feeble and maybe its staff should read the Daily News and the St. Thomas Source more often.
The article constitutes yellow journalism. It violates the unwritten rule of leaving the spouses of candidates out of the political melee, it rehashes old news in an effort to break the stride of a political candidate in the final stretch of an election, and most unfairly of all, it purports to taint a man with the as yet unproven sins of his spouse's employer.
Chad C. Messier
St. Thomas
Editor's note: We welcome and encourage readers to keep the dialogue going by responding to Source commentary. Letters should be e-mailed with name and place of residence to source@viaccess.net.
