Dear Editor,
I am taking this opportunity to write to you on behalf of my client Sabrinah Budhram and her husband Arnold Budhram. Specifically, I want to express not only their disappointment and outrage, but mine as well over the inexcusably irresponsible journalism you have continuously exhibited during the last month in reporting on what you believe to be newsworthy matters concerning Mr and Mrs Budhrams’ case.
To begin with, in rehashing the entire history of Mr and Mrs Budhram’s case in each article you print about them, you are engaging in a form of punitive overkill that is disproportionate to the news events. Secondly, although your reporters claim that certain information concerning the Budhrams is gleaned from court filings, what you actually print consists of erroneous inferences drawn from those court documents.
Further, clearly the most egregious and irresponsible form of journalism involves the recent article in which you have specifically named the Budhrams’ seven year old son, Arin, exposing this minor child to targeting and risk.
As you are aware that article not only sets forth the name of the Budhrams’ minor child, but also exposes to the public uniquely, personal, and intimate matters concerning the child’s devastating health problems. I question, how can you print that? Surely you know that now and for the foreseeable future any time anyone would Google search the child’s name, his name and his medical condition will pop-up on the Internet.
At this point, I seriously doubt that your reporting about Arin Budhram resulted from a simple lapse of judgment.
Rather, the conclusion is inevitable that this was an intentional, irresponsible effort, either to assist your company in selling more newspapers or to further embarrass Mr and Mrs Budhram. As you can well imagine, either is unacceptable and intolerable.
If you are contemplating publishing any further articles about Mr and Mrs Budhram and their case I would suggest that you stick to the facts and not further invade privacy of their seven year-old son, Arin. You have already caused this child enough harm. Please let him be.
Yours faithfully,
John E Bergendahl
Editor’s note
We strongly disagree that our reporting on the Budhrams’ case has been “inexcusably irresponsible” as asserted by Mr Bergendahl.
In the case of the Budhrams’ child we concede that it was perhaps inappropriate to reveal medical details. However, all the information used by Stabroek News was released to the court by Sabrina Budhram in her application for a non-custodial sentence in this case.
