ash's hometown paper recently joined the 21st century with the ability to respond to articles within. Here's her response to the innovation itself, as well as the association she makes with the current state of corporate media. And note the technique of coming full circle to the starting point.
What’s unfair? And who’s the arbitrator?
The State Journal-Register’s brand new feature, the online discussion of articles, is an excellent idea, if a little tardy. Newspapers large and small have offered them practically since the debut of the Internet, or at least its proliferation.
Imagine the brainstorming session. Not since the Thursday entertainment section went tabloid, simultaneously appealing to a younger readership, has such a concept guaranteed increasing the sense of inclusivity among subscribers. There are far more letters submitted than can possibly be published. There are even more opinion editorials rejected not on the basis of quality or relevance but simply because there can be only one lucky winner per week. What better way to accommodate the overflow than to provide a forum for further comment?
Interaction is the currency of modern communication, with the one-way street version rapidly becoming obsolete.
In January, many liberals got bent out of shape when the Washington Post ombudsman, Deborah Howell, asserted that the infamous Jack Abramoff scandal was a bipartisan affair. Liberals as a whole tend not to hesitate before letting loose with the stream of profanity (as appropriate to our level of anger, as a harmless verbal assault), when deserved. Commensurate with the potential damage, Ms. Howell was instantly blasted for portraying a strictly Republican outrage as somehow involving Democrats. As the feedback accumulated, the discussion conveniently shifted from her misleading statements to the profanity itself. The special web account for this one issue was soon purging perceived offensive messages (though, as someone monitoring the situation noted, most of them were not) before it crashed from the enormity of response and was removed altogether. If its purpose was to appease the famously “angry left” it hardly succeeded; though Ms. Howell felt compelled to backtrack slightly on her insistence that Democrats were as complicit as Republicans, she never issued a full correction. The matter was never resolved.
Is the national press – AKA the cocktail circuit - threatened? Anecdotal evidence suggests maybe. Some websites devote themselves to dissecting not the spin from the politicos but from the TV or radio hosts themselves, one side attempting to disprove the myth of “liberal media bias” while the other collects damning examples. When the questioner goes easy on some guests while playing gotcha games with others, and when the questioner engages in a selective practice of follow-up questions, self-appointed judges pounce. Though many of the attacks never reach the intended target, sometimes they hit critical mass, at which point a spokesperson may address the critics. The message? “I’ve paid my dues, and risen through the ranks the traditional way. You may force me to be aware of you, but in the final analysis, you are no more than flies, buzzing around and into my fly screen. I’m a celebrity and you’re not.”
They’re insulated and proud of it.
Indeed, as the buzz becomes louder and the flies multiply, some media veterans symbolically dig in. To cite one instance, Tim Russert, the proprietor of Meet the Press, also has a cable gig on which he interviews authors of just-released socially significant books. On one episode, he enlisted news legend Tom Brokaw to “turn the tables” by interviewing Tim hyping the latest edition of his life story, since he’s already written one ostensibly about his father.
Such self-indulgence makes it hard not to envision Nero fiddling. Issues are overplayed, underplayed, framed, and ignored by the professionals least affected by the outcome, with the bloggers portrayed as so much noise. Confront them with the fact that the people whose credibility they are supposed to challenge are the same people they chat with over Chablis and anchovies – under these circumstances is it possible to be objective? - and they defiantly write not one but two autobiographies thanking everyone they know for their charmed existence. Ain’t life grand? Sure, we’ve got problems but nothing too urgent not to put aside while I tell you about me, as if you were dying to know. I might even give you wannabes some tips on how to achieve my greatness. Remember to play by the rules, and meanwhile get off my case.
Many of us can’t and don’t write, much less shape stories. Many have no interest. Some write letters only some of which get printed, and some don’t bother, because they’re too busy, because they’re indifferent, or because they’re not especially articulate. But for those who have opinions they’re willing to express in a casual, informal email, this newfangled State Journal-Register outlet’s for you. Just show some civility. Be polite. Don’t get personal.
I’d just like to know what constitutes “unfair.”