Posts Tagged Elizabeth Sullivan
Kevin O’Brien… Isn’t the Tea Party Your Cup? Why Are You Still Here?
Posted by Roldo Bartimole in Media on March 29th, 2010
March 29, 2010… Why does The Plain Dealer print Kevin O’Brien? That was the headline atop Sunday’s letters page in the morning newspaper.
So why does the newspaper put up with his nonsense?
There were eight letters all taking O’Brien, a PD editorial page editor and columnist, to task for – even for him – an unusually strident, stupid and ignorant column on the recently passed health care measure.
The column cited screamed out for such a response.
Kevin is upset.
But he is upset in a mean-spirited and dishonest way.
O’Brien’s most onerous paragraph, cited by the first letter writer Philip Pellett, tells it all.
“The Democrats in Congress and the White House have forced upon the United States of America (music please) a federal health care plan designed for people who are too stupid, incompetent and weak to managed their own affairs.”
Anyone who has lived even a little should take offense to that.
Anyone who has lived even a little knows that there are bumps, if not crashes, in almost everyone’s life. You don’t have to be stupid, incompetent or weak to know this. You just have to live.
I think Editor Susan Goldberg and Editorial Page Editor Elizabeth Sullivan should give this some thought.
They need to ask themselves, “Why do we print Kevin O’Brien?”
Lots of people really want to know. Why?
Can Newspaper Editorials Be Honest?
Posted by Roldo Bartimole in Media on October 25th, 2009
October 25, 2009… I’d have to agree with Elizabeth Sullivan’s Sunday Plain Dealer column saying newspapers should take the responsibility of endorsing candidates and issues. I don’t agree, however, that they do it because they “care.” That’s giving them a little too much credit.
I think unfortunately that the closed way they make their endorsements are a disservice to the public.
The Pee Dee and other papers are always calling for “openness” from others. However, the decisions of the Pee Dee editorials provide no “openness.” They are closed about it. Kept mysterious as electing a pope.
We don’t know who wrote them. We don’t know if there was a vote, as we understand there is on certain matters. We don’t know if it was a 5-4 vote or a 6-0 vote. The score would make a big difference in how a reader would interpret the endorsement.
We don’t know, for example, whether Editor Susan Goldberg put any pressure for an Issue 3 editorial supporting the casino gambling issue here. My suspicion is she did. The fact that we don’t know the vote creates mistrust. The Pee Dee can’t afford any more mistrust.
We don’t know if Kevin O’Brien wrote a particular editorial. We could judge by the strong hints of immaturity in the writing. His columns, for example, are more jokes than considered conservatism. He is a disservice to real conservatives.
I’ve been going over a lot of personal history as I pass my 50th year of some of kind of reporting. What became clear to me is that I became disenchanted with newspapers very early in that time. My distrust came quickly.
Newspapers – or as some call them now, MSM (mainstream media) – long ago destroyed much of their credibility. They became voices of the establishment. They reflect conventional corporate ideas and values. They fail miserably to support of the needs of the poor, the poorly educated, and the unfairly treated.
They have upside down coverage of the most powerful, favoring the influential almost automatically. So-called objectivity substitutes for truth-telling. The scales were rigged, it was clear to me early on.
Newspapers cannot survive if they continue to represent those interests and values.
The New York Times last week said that it had more revenue from subscribers than advertisers. That’s really how it should be.
Newspapers would begin possibly to reflect the interests of readers. What a thought!
Boy, would that be a change. Maybe the only chance newspapers have to survive.
Why don’t they try it? I would not bet on it. Would you?