The Flak
Kate Parry, the rationalization machine "Readers Representative" at the Strib, tries to get cute...:
One of my favorite pieces of research so far this year...used MRI scanners to study brains of political partisans...when the partisans rejected criticism of their favorite candidate, it was an emotional rather than a reasoning response, and was accompanied by "flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers."...Here I thought those readers were angry when they fired off that e-mail, when really they were having a flare of pleasure.
...in
her latest piece backing her paper's columnists.
She dodges a key point, however:
These rather extreme suggestions haven't worked very well: The Star Tribune's three metro columnists -- Doug Grow, Katherine Kersten and Nick Coleman -- remain fully employed. But beyond the fact that the tactic isn't working, readers who dismiss the views of columnists in that way risk missing out on an important opportunity to fully engage in the debate that will shape the future of Minnesota.
Oh - this is a
debate?
Great! When do we get our response?
For example - this being a "debate" and all - when we catch Nick Coleman in yet another filthy lie, we get to respond. Right? I mean, with something other than a ruthlessly-edited half-paragraph "letter to the editor" with a one in a hundred chance of seeing the light of day?
Of course it's not a "debate", and when stuffed shirts like Parry call it such it is intensely irking.
Not as much as the platoon of strawmen the likes of Parry use to try to smear those who dare attack the mother paper:
Efforts to silence or weaken opposing voices mire our country in a paralyzing standoff.
You mean, like when
Nick Coleman tries to get bloggers who draw blood fired from their jobs? That kind of chilling, silencing and weakening of the "debate"?
When politically active and savvy citizens approach things that way, is it any wonder our elected representatives can't seem to rise above politics, make some statesmanlike compromises and get their work done?
What an incredible crock.
Bloggers have caught the Strib's columnists - Jim Boyd, Doug Grow and especially (!) Nick Coleman in bogus facts, mythical assertions and flat-out defamation, over and over.
But we and our elected representatives are the ones with the problems?
Ms. Parry: Project much?
I try to take the mind-set of a social anthropologist: How interesting that we live in such an angry, politically divided time that those who disagree with a columnist want that person dismissed.
That's less "social anthropology" than "whining", actually. Kate Parry is shocked,
shocked, that people are angry about her paper's one-sided, slanted, fact-challenged editorial slant; she turns it into the critics' problem.
Question: Doesn't that make Parry more of a "Publisher's Represenative?"
Posted by Mitch at
March 9, 2006 05:18 AM
| TrackBack
But she's on our side!
Still, I'm pretty sure that most of the reason I want to see Nick Coleman's writing output reduced is that he sucks at everything but the local personality profile, and he doesn't stick to those.
Posted by: Steve G. at March 9, 2006 08:19 AMNick coleman and Doug Grow may remain "fully employed". I for one fired the Star Tribune as a news source years ago.
Posted by: Kermit at March 9, 2006 08:20 AMIf a reader's representative claims validation and there's no one there to hear do they make a sound?
Notice how more and more lately, when the left is caught spreading their bullsh*t around it is only for the purpose of "sparking debate" or "engaging in a debate" or teaching young minds to "think critically". It's plain old lying.
Posted by: Colleen at March 9, 2006 08:53 AMWhen I called to cancel my Strib subscription, I was asked, "why?"
My answer was that I could no longer financially contribute to any entity employing Nick Coleman. There was no response.
The follow-up call (offering the better deal!) the next day was made by a tired sounding guy who tried, half-heartedly by the sound of his voice, to convince me they're really trying to balance the paper.
Methinks I'll believe it when I see it. But still, no money for any organization who thinks Coleman is competent enough to earn column inches.
Posted by: Ron at March 9, 2006 11:46 AMMitch,
Your clamour for balance on their opinion page is increadibly hilarious considering your aspoused position that NO media outlet should do ought but be biased as hell.
Say Mitch, here's a debate for you, considering the Meme that a rising tide lifts all boats, as spouted by Normy C. - so I have to assume you at least support Normy if not the sentiment - well, we've gone from 476 Billionairres to 793 in 3 years, when do the rest of us start rising? I mean real income and benefits fell last year for the first time in 9 years... so I'm just wondering, when does that macro effect actually start.. you know.. happening?
When is it you'll actually tackle real issues?
You piss and moan about Coleman incessantly, as if it matters a piss in a poke, and yet advocate for ever more strident media that completely discounts any positions inconvenient to your side (as you've said, leave those to the lefty blogs). Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by the fact that your postings don't really matter.
So when is it Mitch, next year, next decade, next century that the rich will begin to share their wealth, you know, do something totally foriegn to human norm?
PB
Posted by: pb at March 9, 2006 07:44 PM