Raleigh News & Observer columnist Barry Saunders recently told readers:
(William) Bennett, formerly U.S. education secretary and drug czar, among other things, is now a rightwing radio gabber who has become Public Enema No. 1 among the nation's black residents.Saunders didn’t tell N&O readers that Bennett immediately followed that sentence with this one:
His offense? He opined on his broadcast "if you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."
"That would be an impossible, ridiculous, morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."Bennett used a grossly insensitive hypothetical. He was stupid but he wasn't making a racist statement as his immediate description of his hypothetical as "morally reprehensible" makes clear.
Now about Saunders, who writes for a paper that advertises itself as fair and accurate?
Was Saunders fair and accurate when he gave readers only the first sentence of Bennett's remark and withheld from them Bennett's immediate rejection of the hypothetical as "impossible, ridiculous, (and) morally reprehensible?"
According to an extensive comment N&O executive editor for news Melanie Sill made on the thread of her blog post, Columnists: Viewpoints or Bias?, news section columnists such as Saunders:
"are held to the same standards as news reporters in terms of ethics, news gathering and so forth. They could be fired for the same reasons reporters could be fired -- violating N&O standards in any of a variety of areas, ranging from plagiarism to professional behavior lapses.Sill has a post up in which she invites reader comments. I'm going to leave a comment there linking to this post and telling Sill I'll publish in full at JinC any response she makes.
<...>
We edit our columnists, not so much to regulate or guide their opinions as to reinforce overall N&O standards. The editing process has much in common with that used for editing other stories, focusing on whether things are clear, written well, fair and so forth. The columnists have broad license -- their photo and name are on the column -- but they represent the paper even as they voice their opinions, so they're not unsupervised.
Many people say what Saunders did is not a problem at The N&O.
Let's wait to hear what Sill says.
4 comments:
"Public Enema No. 1"
He's a big guy. Man that's gotta hurt.
amazingly, if our dogged media covered the million more march, congresswoman(?) sheila jackson lee, c.rangle, etc... they would find x times inflamatory remarks. but the silences is deadening.
as the print media's circ numbers drop, it is no wonder people lose faith in their accuracy and intent.
i had to leave a comment too. i dislike my hometown paper sooo much (char.observer) that any chance to stick a finger in the eye of the beast (I) try not to miss.
Well, someone has to spread false liberal tropes - who better than ill educated J-school graduates?
-AC
Post a Comment