Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Sub-Standard Editing

I'm sure many of you caught Dean Robert McClure's letter to the editor in today's paper. An original copy of this letter fell into my hands, and it turns out it was pared down by the Sub-Standard. Two lines criticizing Mr. Maffei were excised:

It has the ring of Al Gore’s repetition of Social Security “lockbox” in the 2000 presidential election; you too are in danger of becoming the butt of “there he goes again” jokes.


Jim Walsh is not George Bush, and local folks know him well enough to know that.

However two entire paragraphs criticizing Mr. Walsh were deleted:

Your supporters as well as those trying to make up their minds want to know what you will say to the president if you go back to Washington. Will you be a voice for change; will you represent your district? Or is Mr. Maffei correct? You will quietly support more of the same.


Iraq is the elephant in the room, causing everyone to look pretty silly who ignores it. Without acknowledging that you hear voters’ concerns about their country’s troubling actions in Iraq and elsewhere, your career could be – and should be – in jeopardy.

The overall impression given by these removal turns the article from an objective critique (even if I consider a few to be offbase) into an article much more critical of Mr. Maffei. But what do you expect from the Sub-Standard.


At 3:16 PM, Blogger takebackthehouse said...

The Post Standard once again shows their bias! They purposefully edited this document to cast Dan Maffei in a bad light when edited in the contemptible manner the editors chose. How dare they call themselves journalists! Where is their integrity? The people who rely upon this poor excuse for news are being poorly served. Actually it is more insidious - they are being lied to by the Post Standard. Shame on them!

At 3:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Post-Standard is nothing but a partisan rag that refuses to stand up for the citizens in the 25th. I am glad we have a chance to vote for Maffei on Tuesday and FINALLY get a real representative, and a real voice. It's a shame we can't vote for a new newspaper, too. Did NONE of the reporters or editorial staff at the "Sub-Standard" take any classes on journalistic ETHICS???

At 4:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am going to have a hard time in the futurer spending any money on this newspaper, be it for a subscription or classified adds, or whatever.

At 4:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:16--I agree. How can you trust anything you read there, when you know it is just biased hatchet work? What other news stories have they kept from us?

At 5:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the Post Standard is not a completely lost cause. I mean, the occasionally try to be fair. Or maybe they just occasionally try to appear fair - it's not a lot, but it could be even worse.

They sure haven't even appeared fair in the last week. I say we let them wrestle with their collective conscience (partly to test whether they have one) and let them show us how interested they are in being a substantive and reliable source of local news.

They now have a choice: will they out themselves as a shill rag for the Walsh family, or will they realize that a bit of journalistic integrity is worth something to them? They might choose the former option (at their peril), but they might also step back from the brink. If they do, they will earn back some of my respect.

I think what the Post Standard needs are some checks on their tendencies towards bias - and letters from concerned readers might be a good place to start. But let's not just hurl insults. Let's help them improve.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home