Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Try a little editorial civility
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Milton Dowdy
Dowdy is a retired teacher living in Vinton.
The Roanoke Times seems to consistently present such stringent and one-sided editorial commentaries that this reader, probably along with many others, may be developing a calloused mentality from glancing at or thoroughly reading many such (as seems to be the paper's favorite word) bigoted editorials.
The most recent example was the Dec. 23 editorial "Virgil Goode's macaca moment," when the bigoted, liberal Landmark syndicate (The Roanoke Times) lambasted Virgil Goode with its negative-as-usual, heavily hateful opinion of Goode's letter to his constituency -- his "xenophobic, bigoted" supporters, so-called by The Times' thoughtful, unbiased (sarcastic reference) editorial staff.
As an aside, the liberal Roanoke Times seems to ratchet up its temper and get chills, so-to-speak, whenever the idea of protecting the nation's constituency is mentioned. It seems as if The Times believes in the global experience where there is no acceptable American way: Everybody -- in mass numbers, with no necessary documentation or accountability -- can be a United States citizen without the requisite parameters.
In this cynical liberalism, it seems from what I've read and observed these past years that liberalism's tolerance is more receptive of other world icons, ideas, beliefs and religions and not so tolerant of basic American tenets and foundations.
Goode simply explained his opinion (in my tolerant interpretation) in the overly criticized letter about the Quran's use in a swearing-in ceremony and alluded to the potential unrestrained flood of immigrants in the upcoming years -- all which, in his opinion, have the almost certain opportunity to threaten our governmental integrity, unity and safety. Goode's statement was honestly expressed and made simply and clearly.
The Roanoke Times jumped on his statements with absolutely no tolerance (liberal favorite and key word) and such vehemence that this reader was shocked, even as calloused a reader of The Times as I profess to be.
The fact that Goode did not bow to his accusers or make immediate excuses or amends and had the integrity to stand before the hostile media would have been applauded and hyped if he were favored by this paper as a liberal progressive. The paper's words referring to Goode and his constituents included "racist diatribe," "sin of hypocrisy," "heap of bigotry," "small-minded," "xenophobic," "repugnant fears" and, the least vindictive expression, "insulate himself."
I have read a copy of Goode's complete letter (parts of which were selectively edited) and the above words that the newspaper editors have used seemed much worse than Goode's words in his letter, which was fiercely hyped by the newspaper.
Obviously, Landmark Communications, which publishes this paper, has little or no foresight, understanding and integrity when its Roanoke Times defames and uses such inflammatory, reactionary words and expressions in knee-jerking to an opinion by the gentleman, Mr. Goode.
If there is a shortage of negative words to use in your type-set, I could give you some words that would adequately describe the editorial concerning Goode: cynical, hateful, bigoted, bitter, ultra-liberal, intolerant/narrow-minded, trash-talking and reactionary -- for a few.
I have faithfully read the Roanoke paper since it was The Roanoke Times & World-News. Years ago, it may have seemed like the paper was less reactionary and more civil. Time changes many people and many circumstances, often in negative ways.
If it is possible to offer a suggestion and for the editors to consider it: Editorializing can be written rationally and civilly (at the appropriate times) without always appearing to sound uncivil, spiteful, self-righteous, know-it-all and ultra politically correct.
