Friday, April 20, 2007

Columns: A question of balance

The Courier prides itself in the political balance it displays on the editorial page. We report, you decide.

Today we have a love-letter to a wannabe Presidential candidate from religio-fascist nutbar Cal Thomas, originally titled "Run, Fred, Run," carried verbatim at 701 words.

Also today we have a view from Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson on the credibility or lack thereof of some of our public servants, originally titled "Are They Serious?," minus 417 of its 766 words. Now, as a topic this is a pretty easy target, but the Courier's elisions eviscerate Robinson's arguments and obscure his craft.

I'm sure these cuts were made to fit the available space, no question. But why cut one by more than half and the other by not one word?

Given the proper treatment of yesterday's column by Robinson, I'm beginning to think that at least in some cases this frequent abuse of syndicated columns is somewhat less political than it seems. Rather, the Courier page editor thinks of non-rightwing columns as filler, and treats them as such.


leftturnclyde said...

Ya know John, or Tim or whoever on the editorial staff is lurking out there We notice when you do this kinda crap .cut it out...its worse than fact open refusal to print the columns at all would actually be a more open and honest statement of the couriers political stance than this nod and a wink sly approach which allows you to water down one side and bolster the other.
Let your readers decide for themselves or as I've been sayin ..if It wont fit dont print !

coyoteradiotheater said...

". . . religio-fascist nutbar Cal Thomas."

Pure genius, Steven.

I bow before your righteous venom.

MJ said...

I'm with clyde on this one. I've said it before, I will say it again:

I would much rather deal with an acknowledged bias than a claim of objectivity despite the evidence.