Editorial: 'Nutty Arizona' goes national again
Lately I haven't felt compelled to write about the Courier editorial column. With a few exceptions, the unnamed editor has generally stuck with the sort of themes that suit a small-town monopoly -- fire danger, food drives, "Whiskey Row will rise again," traffic, etc.
I guess that made today's the more disappointing, as from the headline I was expecting to see something sensible and unusually straightforward from the editor. But by the end of the first graf he's falling over his own shoelaces:
Now it's the "birther" issue again, and whether President Barack Obama is a legal US citizen who was born in Hawaii and, therefore, qualified to have run for the office in the first place and to seek re-election to another four-year term. Or is his birth place really Kenya, his father's homeland, and a birth certificate to prove otherwise is fraudulent?Yes, it's the birther issue again — meaning not that there's a real issue of whether the President was born American, but rather that a bunch of wackos we call birthers are making a ridiculous stink — and no, there is no question about the President's provenance. That's been clearly and publicly established. Even Governor Brewer is firmly distancing herself from this one with her signature elocution: "I talked to the governor, the previous governor of Hawaii, and she validated to me that the certificate was valid. And I put that to a rest."
The headline fairly describes the issue as nutty, yet below it the editor feigns Pooh-like simplicity and accepts that as long as one nutcase continues to believe a thing, there must be a "fair" debate about it in the press.
Here's the editor waiting for Superman in his conclusion: "We wait for the right person to come forward and settle the question once and for all." Who's that, editor, the disembodied Hand O' Gad writing in flaming letters in the sky, perhaps?
It's not Arizona that's being nutty. Is it really so hard to commit to print your duh moment in realizing that the political party you identify with has come completely unhinged, hostage to insane terrorists and succumbing to Stockholm Syndrome?
14 comments:
I don't know if you noticed but the Courier has been censoring Honky Brujo. People who know Honky Brujo have been asking why there have been no comments on the latest bigotry put out by the Republicans. Simple answer, if your comments are not printed, you are being censored. As to the subject, Birthers are nothing more than racist who refuse to just come out and admit they hate that we have a Black President. Just like in the 1930's it was acceptable to be a member of the Klan, but now no one will admit their relative was a Klan member. In the near future no one will admit that they or their relatives was a member of the Tea Party.
Honky knows that I'm happy to host his comments when the Courier won't. I've noticed that he's been quiet lately. I could speculate that this may be in part because he moved away from Prescott a while ago and is sensibly getting more involved in his local issues. In any case, I'm sure he doesn't need a champion or a translator.
If you have direct information about the Courier editors monkeying with comments, I'm eager to see it in detail. On the other hand I'm not wild about baseless charges, however justified they may seem.
Hey Steven, So I have to chime in on this subject - again. It seems that recently the editors at the Courier have been censoring more than usual. I would say that easily a third of my submissions never see the light of day. Even my posts relating to censorship get censored. And I'm sure I'm not violating their terms. It is a bias. I believe "Attentive" mentioned this a few weeks ago as well. So I'm starting to keep track of what is not being printed. Cut & Paste. My question is, what would be the next step ? Getting others that also are being dropped ? After all I guess the paper isn't obliged to be "fair". But it is a disconcerting feeling to come up against the wall of censorship in America. Particularly when its so blatant.
This issue frustrates me a bit because people complain about it repeatedly but so far have done nothing to address it.
This blog can be a community tool for that. You just have to document your censored comments and post them here. The collective weight of censored comments, published in the clear for all to see and evaluate, is the only leverage I can think of for changing either the understanding of other readers or the behavior of the editors.
Every time this comes up I say the same thing. Document your comments. When they don't show up on dcourier, post them here. If a substantial number of people do that consistently, there's a chance for change. Complaints are interesting, but essentially worthless in the larger scheme of things. We have to be able to prove that the editors are violating their own policies, to shame them into conformance.
Fair enough. I am making copy's and keeping them. But I guess my concern is that if someone writes a comment, then has it censored, how will posting it here get it exposure ? I mean it would in all probability not be relevant to the subject currently being discussed on your blog so the public wouldn't know. If I make a comment about Communism, which gets censored, then how, if the topic here is say "crime", does anyone know about it ? What I think needs to happen is for a reporter or writer to write a letter to the editor about this subject. Then the comments will tell the story in short order. Will lots of regular posters complain about being censored, or just those of a particular political leaning ? Will the paper even print the letter to begin with ? If I write the letter, using my name, then the paper could say " Who are you ? We haven't censored you. So I'd have to take the position of " I heard that this paper.." But if someone else with a bit of notoriety and connections, as I said a professional writer or journalist, were to bring it up..... well that could really start something that would be interesting to see. I don't mean to beat a dead horse on this subject but to me it represents something fundamentally wrong with our community. How do local peoples voices get heard through censorship ? Interesting question always but particularly during an election year.
I can organize comments any way I like. I can set up a separate page specifically for this issue. Given enough data I can make an issue of it. But without good data, there's nothing to say.
I have no illusions that rightwingers will participate here, but I'm not particularly interested in some sort of big-tent ideal. We do what we can with what we've got to work with, and so far I've got squat.
Don't overthink it, and don't expect results in a week. Work it, and word will get around.
Thanks Steven - I guess I'll just start a file :) If you wish to discuss this further with me, I would be willing to e-mail you using my true identity. I'm all good with that. Again thank you.
Ok so the following is the latest post to be censored. It was in responce to one of the recent " commie " LTE. Maybe you can tell me why its so out of line. I have resubmitted it today. - So I read a memo about how Fox is setting up a satellite platform in space to broadcast “Red Dawn” 24/7. The signal is to be sent directly into backyard bomb shelters of Tom and crew. If you sign up now, you will receive a signed picture suitable for framing of Joe McCarthy , a box of chocolate chip cookies, and a tin foil hat.
So maybe "someone" is reading this - All of a sudden my post shows up right when I'm screaming about bring censorship to light. Interesting.
So I go out for a bit and come back to find Zig's comment above arrived at 1:47pm. I look on dCourier at 2:12 and find the comment published here, as if it's entirely new. Because this original blog post is over a week old, I had to approve publishing it here, so it appeared on dCourier first.
There's a data point.
We also have to allow for the possibilities inherent in technical systems operated by humans. Things can go wrong. I've seen more than a few comments appear that were clearly meant for a different article, for example, and in the past I know that results could vary with the individual editor vetting the comments, whether through intent or incompetence. That's why I feel the need to gather a large body of data before undertaking any conclusion or complaint about what's happening. There's just too much we can't see on an anecdotal basis.
Absolutely Steven. Like I said I posted it days ago. Decided to try re-posting since I was complaining about it here. That said I have a hard time believing that it was just a mix-up. It happens to often. I'm more inclined to believe that someone was playing games. But you can be sure that from here on out I will be keeping track, and keeping copy's, of what's not getting printed.
Thanks Steven - Can't help but feel that if this wasn't coming to light on your site, it wouldn't come to light at all.
So one last comment (until I'm censored again). Steven, I've read your blog for a long time now. I also have listened to you for years on the Lucy Mason show. Based on what I know, I would have to believe that in your heart of hearts you know something fishy is going on at the paper. When Honky and Attentive and myself all complain about censorship, well somethings going on. Call it capricious, arbitrary,or bias,it still boils down to the same thing. Censorship. You yourself said that you've heard about it repeatedly. Three "Liberal/Progressive" commentators all being censored by a conservative paper run by like minded conservatives in a conservative town. I don't think we're all making this up. And I really think some light has to be brought to the subject, no matter the documentation. IT'S HAPPENING !
I've had comments disappear too, and Ben Hansen boasted in print to the effect that he enjoyed disappearing the comments of people he didn't like. I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone in feeling singled out, and the idea of an editor sitting anonymously at a screen and sticking it to people he doesn't agree with pushes my justice button. But an important rule for me is to never ascribe to malice where incompetence will do.
Nothing would please me more than to call out the paper for monkeying with the comments for venal political spite. But it does no one any good to treat inferences and feelings as facts. Making unsupportable allegations undermines any cause. Short of developing a sympathetic source inside the building, the only way I can see to crack that nut is to patiently build a case and eliminate every explanation but one. And the only way to be able to evaluate the evidence is to avoid getting attached to an outcome. If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.
Post a Comment