Larry Williams, whose keen intellect was able to cut through layer upon layer of bullshit while he was covering the state legislature, has now focused on some recent content of the Courant’s editorial page.
Here’s what he posted on Facebook:
The Courant Editorial Page is asking readers to “vote” and comment on “Is a Florida Church’s plan to burn a Quran justified?” I commented that I couldn’t believe they would ask such a question. Ed Page’s reaction: “Well, Larry, I guess we could pretend that there’s no point in discussing current events, but it might make the opinion page pretty dull for readers.” So the Courant’s editorial page has become so stupid it can’t understand what’s wrong with its question. If someone says they think it’s justified to burn Korans, is he “discussing current events?” What’s next? Did New Orleans deserve to be hit with Hurricane Katrina because it promotes an immoral lifestyle? (Some right wing nut said that.) Did the U.S. deserve to be attacked on 9/11 because gays, “abortionists” and others had promoted an “alternative lifestyle?” (Falwell said that.) Some wacko announces he’ll burn Korans, and the Courant asks its readers whether it’s a good idea.
Loading ...
As we responded to Mr. Williams’ bug-eyed outrage:
“Easy there, big guy.
I’ll agree the question might have been better rephrased. But the underlying question, rephrased — Is burning Qurans legitimate speech, is it advisable speech, is it warranted, is it a reprehensible and ill-considered insult — this is the discussion that’s going on in the public sphere, actually.
Frankly, beyond your objection to the word “justifiable,” I’m sure I don’t understand your ire.”
Does Mr. Williams contend the controversy over burning Qurans — or even support for burning Qurans — is somehow illegitimate? Probably we should not discuss such matters, or perhaps pretend that people who do support burning Qurans do not exist.
It is all very confusing. It’s worthwhile noting that the Facebook post referred to has garnered 87 comments to date — and that the online unscientific poll based on our question netted close to 1,000 responses.
Lastly, since we’re talking about being persnickety over a word choice, essentially, we should note that Mr. Williams was NOT responding to content on our editorial page — rather to a question on our Facebook page.
Well, the fact is, word choice, as journalists know, is important. It can make the difference between an intelligent inquiry and a stupid question.
“Bug-eyed outrage”? And your first reaction was that I must be arguing that there should be no “discussion of current events” on the editorial pages if I thought your question was inappropriate. That’s a pretty “bug-eyed” interpretation of my complaint, don’t you think? Now you say “we should note that Mr. Williams was NOT responding to content on our editorial page — rather to a question on our Facebook page.” Boy is that a deceptive statement. You printed the question, some answers and the “poll results” in the newspaper, sinking the Courant to a level I never dreamed possible when I worked there. And even if you hadn’t published it in the newspaper, you shouldn’t be presenting the Courant in such a poor fashion on Facebook.
Who are you, anyway? I hope you’re not anyone I knew in the editorial department because I’d hate to think I liked someone who is such a jerk.
Name-calling? Really? (Sigh.)
Given no coherent reasons, we remain confused by the hostility. We could contest the issue point by point, but to what end? Suffice to say, there’s a more illuminating, consequential discussion going on over at http://www.facebbok.com/edpagecourant.
Don’t be confused by my hostility, anonymous one. I worked at the Courant from 1980 to 2008. During the 80s and 90s, the Courant was a good regional newspaper, a place anyone would be proud to work. It’s been destroyed by Tribune, and by people like you, who seem to enjoy contributing to its decline. Yeah, I’m angry about it, and I’m not unusual among the alumni in that respect. I am unusual in that I occasionally object to an especially egregious act of journalistic malpractice, thinking it might discourage a repeat abuse. I may still do that, but it won’t be about anything you do.
Oh, there’s no question we will never be the paper we were when you were here … if only for that simple fact.
But those of us who remain continue to try to do the best job we can in the face of daunting challenges and obstacles. It is especially galling and unwelcome to be run down from behind, so to speak, by those who should think and know better.
You, sir, attempted to portray a poor turn of phrase as a horrific lapse of journalistic integrity — committing, remarkably, just such a lapse.
We do not let lies and slanders go unchallenged — and so, apparently, are still doing that part of the job right.
Go ahead and rationalize if it makes you feel better.
Both of these statements are absolutely true: that the Courant has never dipped so low, and that the people who are left — our former colleagues, our friends — are doing their best. They are held to unrealistic expectations, and sometimes when they miss we hold their feet to the fire. Cynically, we are accused of doing this out of unresolved bitterness, or out of an obsolete institutional pride, but we are readers and consumers, and as such we demand a level of performance. That performance, for whatever reasons, sometimes is not forthcoming. Two quick examples. The Courant still has a photo department, yet we are inexplicably subjected to shaky video shot from moving (and sometimes distant) cars. And the editing of the various online presences can be less than attentive. I recall a facebook reference to a concert in “Martford,” and early versions of courant.com stories — the first impression that The Courant presents to its public — are not uncommonly marred by typos, missing words, and inaccuracies. But if we point these out, we can be attacked as bitter armchair turncoats who don’t understand what the few remaining workers are up against.
It’s undeniable that The Courant is nothing like what it was when there were 350 people (or more) working in the various facets of the newsroom. But it’s also undeniable that it can be better than it is, even under the current circumstances. And when we, as readers and consumers, point out the shortcomings and demand better, that’s what we’re saying — that it can be better, should be better. We’re performing our own duties in the peculiar formula of supply and demand. It is entirely reasonable for us to believe that pointing out a breach could have a positive effect later on. It’s not just sour grapes.