ShareThis Page
Fallen heroes deserved better |

Fallen heroes deserved better

| Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:00 a.m

To the Editor:

I’m writing in response to the story on Page 3A of your March 15 edition. I can’t believe that you could only have two lines of print in the paper in regards to the two Pittsburgh firefighters who made the “supreme sacrifice.”

Every news station and every other newspaper gave this horrific event top billing. Your paper stated “in which two firefighters perished” (Page 3A). Five words• Two lives?

That math doesn’t add up to me.

As a firefighter, not only does my heart go out to families of those whom have fallen but to the entire Pittsburgh Bureau of Fire, and the congregation of the Ebenezer Baptist Church. As your article states, the landmark church will be rebuilt. I certainly wish the members well in the midst of their strife for they are at a great loss as well.

My concerns are with the fact that your paper paid no homage whatsoever to the men I am proud to call “brothers.” In the fire service, whether you are “city paid or volunteer,” you are still a firefighter, still a “brother firefighter.”

There are firefighters planning on attending today’s funeral services for these two brave men from as far away as Japan, yet these men who gave their lives trying to help others get five words of ink from you.

I certainly hope in the future you don’t have to report on any firefighter deaths. But in the meantime, please realize that whether the incident is in Pittsburgh, Donora, Los Angeles, New York, or even Japan, we firefighters feel the loss. We are “brothers” and will continue to be, regardless of the fact that we never get our “just do.”

C.D. Rhome, Chief
Monessen Bureau of Fire
Company No. 1

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.