June 04, 2006
Newspaper Encourages Readers to Phone Conservative Letter Writer
Apparently stung by recent criticism citing a lack of balance in the selection of letters to the editor, the Syracuse Post-Standard in its Sunday edition suggested that readers telephone the conservative reader who raised the issue.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
From the Editor's note (emphasis added):
A close reading of last Sunday's Feedback response would make clear that Richard Lindsay has earned his record as "most prolific" from the number of letters he writes, not the number published. Just because we say it, does that make it true? Here's more specific information: Lindsay sent us four letters dated May 26; two more dated May 27; two dated May 28; two dated May 29. And so on. Still don't believe us? Why not give him a call?While the paper stops short of providing Lindsay's telephone number, the suggestion to call him implies that Lindsay does not have an unlisted number, and, in fact, there are two Richard Lindsays listed in the Syracuse phone book.
Apart from the accusations of editorial bias in the selection of letters (members of the Syracuse Peace Council do seem to be pretty successful at getting their visceral hatred of the President published), why Lindsay, a conservative who often disagrees with the Post-Standard's left-leaning editorial policies, is singled out for criticism for being "prolific" is a mystery. Apparently, prolific liberal letter writers are concerned citizens, while prolific conservative letter writers are cranks.
In any case, for a daily newspaper to encourage its readers to harass a man for stating his opinions is irresponsible and outrageous, and seems more driven by pique than reasoned counter-argument.
Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
08:16 AM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I've said it before: I don't really care if the MSM is biased or not. I just wish they had the balls to admit that they not just biased in favor of the left, but rabidly so.
Posted by: Thrill at June 04, 2006 09:08 AM (DYb4r)
2
In my hometown paper, no editorials submitted WITHOUT a phone number are published. Unlike the blogosphere, this example of MSM or whatever you call it requires accountability -- and some guts -- from its readers.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 09:31 AM (oxMjD)
3
What's your phone number, Glenn?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 04, 2006 10:22 AM (RHG+K)
4
Well Bluto I am not quite sure of what to make of YOUR publishing on the internet the fact that there are two listings for that name in the phone book. Are you hoping that some of us will call ? And as for lack of balance and censorship : horrible and shocking !!!.......... Oh yes I can well understand having been BANNED from your blog for comments disagreeing with your posts.
Posted by: john ryan at June 04, 2006 10:35 AM (TcoRJ)
5
(Glenn's address and phone number have been removed - ed.)
Yours?
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 10:41 AM (oxMjD)
6
John Ryan:
Do you ever stop sniveling? it sounds to me like you need to cuddle up with a big box of Kleenex tissue, sunshine, and cry yourself to sleep?
I would find a crotch full of sand lice, eating their way through my skin, less irritating that you.
Posted by: davec at June 04, 2006 11:56 AM (CcXvt)
7
John Ryan, is Bluto hoping one of us will call him? Are you kidding? Just the fact that there are two listings with that name, and the suggestion that readers call Mr. Lindsay would not only be "lashing out" (a very unbecoming trait for journalists who claim to have standards and objectivity) at the Richard Lindsay who is the "prolific" letter writer, but would also be unfair to the Richard Lindsay who would likely prefer to be left alone. Or was that too simple a concept to grasp?
If our local paper was angry at a Judy Milam in my town and suggested their readers call her, I would be very upset if my phone started ringing with angry outbursts from strangers just because I had the same name. How would you feel?
Posted by: Kim Jong Il at June 04, 2006 12:39 PM (YudAC)
8
[sigh] Every time I think I've p[lumbed the depths of Liberal stupidity some Lefty comes along and does something idiotic like posting their name, address, and phone number on an internet website.
john ryan: you were banned from my website for making grossly inappropriate and disrespectful comments to a Memorial Day post.
If I were going to ban you for disagreeing with me that would have happened months ago, as you have never, to my recollection, agreed with a post that I have made. Your freedom to be a drive-by troll on my blog does not extend to disrespecting veterans.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 04, 2006 12:55 PM (RHG+K)
9
Oh mildly risky I suppose, but well worth it to illustrate one more time that the evil MSM doesn't have the market cornered on hypocrisy (also that grammatically-correct invective can't be equated with well-conceived editorial content ... but that's just a bonus.)
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 01:10 PM (oxMjD)
10
Opps, Kim Jong Il was me. (I thought I'd changed that. Sorry)
Posted by: Oyster at June 04, 2006 01:12 PM (YudAC)
11
Oops, "Opps" should be "oops".
Posted by: Oyster at June 04, 2006 01:13 PM (YudAC)
12
Risk is risk, Glenn - you never need a seatbelt until an accident. Of course, there's no way for us to gauge the risk unless we read about you in the papers. A couple of years ago a local girl was murdered after revealing her contact information on the Web. I believe the killer then set her body on fire to conceal the evidence, but I might be mixing it up with another murder.
But I did learn a valuable lesson here. Never dare a liberal to do something pointless and stupid.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 04, 2006 03:14 PM (RHG+K)
13
Well, I appreciate the concern for my well-being,
Bluto, but I'm not a local girl and anyone that bothers me from information gleaned on the web would get my best efforts toward an ass kicking. As for listing my contact info, I don't think assuming an arguably minute risk to stand up for what I believe in is pointless or stupid. But that's always been the main point of contention between liberals and cynics.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 03:42 PM (oxMjD)
14
glenn,
taking risks that have no reason to be taken is always pointless and stupid.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 04, 2006 04:05 PM (8e/V4)
15
Read my initial post. Seems plain I had a reason.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 04:07 PM (oxMjD)
16
glenn, the point of your initial post was that if conservatives have the audacity to write letters to the editor, their contact information should be published in order for liberals to harass them.
If you had another point I'm afraid I didn't see it, nor do I see how providing your personal contact information had anything to do with my post.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 04, 2006 05:08 PM (RHG+K)
17
>>>their contact information should be published in order for liberals to harass them.
That sounds pretty pointless and stupid to me.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 04, 2006 05:42 PM (8e/V4)
18
Hmmm... you sure you're referring to my post? I don't recall alluding to anyone having the audacity to write something deserving of harassment by anyone else. This is one of the "blanks" you've again filled in on your own.
My point was rather simple: editorialize in a bona fide media outlet, have the guts to take any resulting heat. It was what Michele Malkin required of those kids last month at , where was it....UC Berkley?
If on the other hand, you prefer to avoid accountability for your statements and sling your arrows from darkness, then the blogosphere is the place for you -- which is why its entertaining and often amusing, but never to be taken as a source of real analysis or context.
I prefer sunshine and am willing to take the heat that goes along with it. I left my contact info as evidence--especially after your attempts to "call my bluff" as it were.
Small deal, really, and the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 05:58 PM (oxMjD)
19
glenn,
There's a difference between anonimity vs posting your address for everybody to see and use. Anonimity might be gutless, but posting your address/phone number on the pages of a major U.S. newspaper is just plain stupid. That's why nobody does it.
Therefore, it doesn't make you courageous to post your address, it just makes you someone who is stupid pretending to be courageous. That pretense is all the more pronounced and ridiculous when you do it on a blog of little or no consequence like this one because here you suffer no risk (as opposed to at a major U.S. daily). So you just come off as silly and childish, not courageous.
Bluto's first mistake was to equate you posting your address on this inconsequential blog with posting it on a major newspaper of a major U.S. city. His mistake, and you exploited it. Your mistake was thinking that calling his bluff makes you courageous. It doesn't, because this isn't a major U.S. newspaper and there was no risk to you.
But it all really boils down to this. Your little exercise in "courage" amounts to nothing but rhetorical point scoring with little or no substance to it. Not a surprise. Most of the back and forth on blogs usually amounts to no more than that. But it doesn't change the fact that it's unethical for a newpaper to do what they did to that poor conservative crank who wastes his time writing them letters. He's a crank, and they're unethical fucks. You volunteered to publish your address, he didn't. This is a harmless blog, that's a major U.S. daily. No comparison.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 04, 2006 06:25 PM (8e/V4)
20
OK.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 06:47 PM (oxMjD)
21
"OK"
lol! at least try and put up a fight dammit!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 04, 2006 06:50 PM (8e/V4)
22
Ha! Alright, you've got me pegged. A lot of my willingness to throw my phone number out there was because I realize blog sites in general are fairly inconsequential — and as you say even more so when compared to a US newspaper. Plus, I was called out and never run in the face of such a challenge.
But when I have submitted editorials to my newspaper in the past, it's listed my name and the suburb I live in. From that, people have found my phone number (not tough to do) and left comments either agreeing or voicing anger with me on our machine. OK, that's the deal. I get that.
So it's not a matter of courage JC, it's a matter of being willing to play by the rules of editorial submissions. And that's why I hold blog sites in low regards--they play by no such rules and the sharing of legitimate information is the worse for it. Far from being an answer to the MSM (and I despise that acronym) it is the de-evolution of it.
Posted by: glenn at June 04, 2006 07:08 PM (oxMjD)
23
Let's get some of their home phone numbers and make some phone calls. I got free nights and weekends and a fair and flexible plan.
It's my little way of - sticking it to the man.
Posted by: dan l at June 05, 2006 05:37 AM (CLW0q)
24
Jeez Steve, what liberals you been talking to?
I always thought we were the tree-hugging pacifists, ever thwarting the best efforts of the pro-military conservatives and putting our country at risk in the process.
As for specific threats, you're funny. See anything from Improbulus Maximus on these posts and then tell him he must be a liberal. You'll be garroted by the time it's all done.
Best get your story straight, captain.
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 05:55 AM (UHKaK)
25
Glenn,
What's always interesting when having a "discussion" with a liberal is that you can bet the farm on having some type of physical threat (best efforts towards an ass kicking) at some point during the "discussion". It's just so predictable. I just imagine some scrawny nerd hiding behind his keyboard spewing out threats knowing full well his bravado is all he has. In the real world, this is the guy that would never even think of issuing a threat face to face because he knows he would be in for the beat down of his life. I almost feel sorry for the guy. Almost.
Posted by: steve.miller at June 05, 2006 05:57 AM (y2Q1a)
26
Jeez Steve, what liberals you been talking to?
I always thought we were the tree-hugging pacifists, ever thwarting the best efforts of the pro-military conservatives and putting our country at risk in the process.
As for specific threats, you're funny. See anything from Improbulus Maximus on these posts and then tell him he must be a liberal. You'll be garroted by the time it's all done.
Best get your story straight, captain.
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 06:00 AM (UHKaK)
27
glenn, your disdain for blogs is gainsaid by the amount of time you spend trolling. I understand your distaste for conservative blogs and the term "MSM". Most liberals have been in a state of frenzy over losing the decades-long liberal monopoly on news. But you're looking at blogs the wrong way; the real effectiveness of blogs (and talk radio) is not as an alternative to traditional media, but as watchdogs.
JC: this blog's average traffic is over 5,000 visitors per day. Unlike a newspaper, posts and comments are left up indefinitely, multiplying the "traffic" statistics. Also, the audience is worldwide, not limited to one city or region. There are good reasons why we teach our teenagers not to share personal contact info on public sites. What glenn has going for him is that psychos are more likely to arise from the Left than the Right.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 05, 2006 06:22 AM (RHG+K)
28
Bluto-actually, I understand full well how these mediums see themsleves. And in the initial stages, they probably filled the void for the disenfranchised.
But they did it too well and something else has happened along the way. Rather than acting as watchdogs, they got into the business of creating alternate realities from the facts at hand (though those "facts" are often questionable.)
From that, the idea has been established (damn-near codified) that there are no REAL truths, merely interpretations. So "forget the truths that may not jibe with your world views, ladies and gents,go out and find the interpretation that suits you." Politics has turned into a team sport and blog/talk are the cheerleaders.
I don't like the idea of alternate news any more than I like the idea of "good" science and "bad" science. If blogs and talk radio are the watchdogs, then we need better watchdogs. Lots better.
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 07:17 AM (UHKaK)
29
From that, the idea has been established (damn-near codified) that there are no REAL truths, merely interpretations.
That notion is already codified by the Left. The belief that there are no real truths is boilerplate Leftism. That's the "nuanced" approach, no? You wouldn't want to be accused of being "black or white", no? You wouldn't want to be accused of being a "Sith" conservative, now would you.
Nobody here is claiming there are alternate truths, we're claiming the MSM is populated by Liberals who are in the business of lying by distortion and ommition. How else do you explain how it's always in paragraph 18 where it finally says the "dissafected yutes" are actually MUSLIMS. Every. Single. Time. You know why? Because they are trying to manage our perception of reality. Or look how Haditha is going to be front page news for the next 6 months, while the exonneration of marines at Ishaqi gets a page 16 squib. It happens every single time.
Unlike what the Left would have us believe, there is only ONE truth. ONE. Oh, and then there's Liberal MSM version of truth. And that's what we have blogs for.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 05, 2006 08:13 AM (8e/V4)
30
I agree with glenn about the term "mainstream media", or "MSM". It's a bad term. The so-called MSM don't really represent the mainstream anymore, a consequence of losing their monopoly on deciding the news.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at June 05, 2006 08:21 AM (RHG+K)
31
JC, the conservative movement's grasp for power -- going back to Goldwater's loss -- and reassertion of power -- going back to Nixon's resignation -- had as one of its core tenets the deligitimization of mainstream press.
That delegit program was founded on establishing the idea--now accepted as truth by conservative bloggers--that the media is somehow an instrument of the liberal elite. Conservatives point to their "evidence": certain things given short-shrift, some stuff on page one, other stuff on page 16.
How can that be? Today, I read everything George Bush had to say about gay marriage on page one. The Marines exonerated of murder charges on page 2, along with an article about Haditha. This Canadian terrorism plot on page 1 of the International section. Where is this liberal whitewash?
Meanshile, I see the Sean Hannitys, the Cal Thomases, the Fox Newses and the Rish Limbaughs everywhere. These people don't report, they opine and they're opinions are well represented in the MSM. Where is your gripe?
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 08:33 AM (UHKaK)
32
>>>>The Marines exonerated of murder charges on page 2, along with an article about Haditha.
Yes, "along with an article about Haditha", lest we forget Haditha! lol! You aren't sensitized to it, that's why you can't see it.
So why wasn't the exoneration of Ishaqi BLASTED all over the headlines the way Haditha, Abu Graib, and Ishaqi were? Because they aren't interested in blasting the good news all over the headlines, only the bad news.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 05, 2006 10:23 AM (8e/V4)
33
And because the Haditha story was on page 2, could I have "Ha, blatant conservative bias?" That should have been page 1 stuff!!!!
Of course not. News is news.
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 10:54 AM (UHKaK)
34
Should be "could I have YELLED "Ha, blatant conservative bias?" Sorry.
Posted by: glenn at June 05, 2006 10:56 AM (UHKaK)
35
glenn,
also, I'm willing to bet $50 bucks that in the Ishaqi article they PROMINENTLY regurgitated more of the same on Haditha-- LEST WE FORGET. lol! That's how it works, standard operating procedure for the MSM.
You probably haven't noticed how even the good news is used to spin their narrative. They'll briefly state the good news and then the rest of the article is reguritated bad news.
A pretty good example would be an article about the successfuly Iraqi elections. It starts with the headline about the iraqi elections. The first paragraph expands on it, and then everything underneath it is about all the bombs exploding and people being killed and blah blah blah --- LEST WE FORGET! lol!
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 05, 2006 11:04 AM (8e/V4)
36
Thats a violation of right to privacy that news paper should be sued and used for birdcage linning
Posted by: sandpiper at June 05, 2006 03:13 PM (Dutrh)
37
Bluto banished the American hating little shit John Ryan!
Hmmm. Bluto must be ahead of us here.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 06, 2006 05:15 AM (PV2nq)
38
I think I see where you're coming from JC -- why emphasize the negative when the positive is in the same theater?
So using the past few weeks USA Today as an example, "9 severed heads found in fruit boxes in Bagdad" could just as easily be "2.7 million heads NOT found in fruit boxes in Bagdad."
And "US Marines accused of murdering two-dozen civilians" could be re-written as "28,000+ US Marines NOT accused of murdering two-dozen civilians."
Hey, how's about changing "Two US soldiers Killed by IED" to "The rest weren't."
It's all so clear to me now.
Posted by: glenn at June 06, 2006 01:41 PM (UHKaK)
41kb generated in CPU 0.0191, elapsed 0.166 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1561 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1561 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
