Here’s a proverbial labor of love. It also amused ash no end to write it. To become familiar with everything which led up to it, see here,here, here, and here.
Paul Harvey calls it “the rest of the story.” In a related matter, some unethical schmo, upon being confronted by the 60 Minutes crew, waved his hands and blew a raspberry in order to preclude the footage from being air-worthy. Of course, when it ran he only looked like an idiot as well.
That’s the power of the press in action. The editor determines not only what to show and what not to show but the timing of the material and the sequence as well. The editor may remove text, add text, and shade the meaning and impact of a letter through numerous tricks of the trade.
Since my hard copy subscription expired (and yes, it would be gratifying to repeat the procedure) I’ve been breezing through the mail section faster than I was while still receiving the paper. Part of the motivation was to wean myself from it should it no longer be available online (it is); another reason is that the letters were becoming increasingly dull. Local issues will do that for me. I find them as uncompelling as they must be engaging to the vast majority of readers, who demonstrate their inherent appeal by commenting in greater numbers the closer to home the story. In the era of hemorrhaging subscriptions it’s particularly wise to assess the community’s appetite for reports on events with no universal interest. Give the reader what he wants then skew the editorial page in favor of associated feedback whether or not it represents proportionate commentary. And it certainly helps that, considering their limited value, they won’t be covered elsewhere.
In an ongoing correspondence, it’s not necessary to repeat background information, though often prudent to provide pertinent reminders. When the public becomes privy to a piece of the communication it cannot be held accountable for inevitable misreadings and misinterpretations. The editor – the publisher, the producer – is responsible for any confusion the private message provokes for having released it to the inadvertent audience absent a synopsis of the preceding circumstances. “Out of context,” a cliché often invoked when there is no justification for one’s behavior, aptly describes this situation.
But if missing the point is the invariable result of ignorance by design, the targeted recipient is pardoned by no such convenient misunderstanding. And when the targeted recipient also happens to be the editor – the publisher, the producer – not only of the original message but the unenlightened responses, he or she is doubly irresponsible. Of course, if the purpose is not to communicate clearly but to tarnish the adversary, that irresponsibility is merely a tool facilitating the completion of the project.
It’s sort of like the current administration. While the most common adjective describing it is “incompetent,” if you think in terms of what it’s trying to accomplish – as opposed to a worthy or stated objective – the operation has been a resounding success. If the goal is to weaken a democracy that reliance on its leaders be that much more critical, then who would argue that that effort has not been in evidence since the very beginning?
Intended readers – the editor, several other SJ-R employees, my carbon copy group – may have noticed that my previous letter did not supply the letter to which it retorted. That was obviously deliberate. Likewise, in this case I will not reproduce the contents of another letter, released to the general public after a rather curious time lapse, due to its immateriality. It’s the fact of these letters, not what they contained, to which I address my concerns.
And of course there’s the underlying offense lost in the shuffle of proliferating tangents. I consider that even more calculating than creating a misrepresentation of the non-powerful half of the equation. To advance the narrative without correcting the record thus far is of no consequence to the dissembling party. It carries the additional benefit of never confronting the initial act for what personal deficiencies made it possible.
I don’t care, as you may have guessed by now, but I wanted to write something relevant to the subtext, unlike the poor saps unwittingly drawn into the drama. This essay, still devoid of its proper context, stands alone as a work of utter incomprehension. Of course, if that advances the desired impression, by all means go ahead and print it.