Oh no. You do NOT fuck with my mama.
Aug. 2nd, 2004 12:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thebratqueenMy mother wrote to the local paper recently when they carried a headline of "WE ARE NOT SAFE" as their lead-in to the report on the 9/11 Commission findings. She bypassed the letter to the editor, and went directly to the publisher.
The publisher wrote back in a way that was so patronizing that I would have happily ripped him a new one just on general princple. But since he's aiming this bullshit at my mother?
Oh no. That was a very dumb move for him.
Dear [publisher]:
My mother, [TBQ's mom], wrote to you recently regarding the July 22 [newspaper] headline of "We are not safe." As I was interested in how that correspondence turned out, she was kind enough to share with me the letter that you wrote back to her.
I am writing to you now not as my mother's daughter, though that does certainly help, but as someone who lives in the community where you present yourself as an ideal source of news and information.
Sir, I did not in any way appreciate the tone of the letter that you sent. The woman writing to you is not stupid. She educates herself about the world around her. She reads newspapers and magazines, and listens to the radio. This was not an ignorant individual who was writing to you, but someone who is savvy about the media and about how bias shapes the flow of information.
You write to her "Contrary to what you suggest, journalistic integrity requires us to accurately report what the 9/11 Commission is telling us." Sir, that was precisely my mother's point. She was asking for an accurate report of the 9/11 Commission's findings, not a sensationalistic headline more worthy of a tabloid. "We are not safe"? I'm sorry, did the terror alert go up that day? Did reports come in of an impending attack on our country? Were we all to batten down the hatches, and hide in our bunkers with our knives and canned goods? No? Then what exactly was the goal of that headline if not to shock people, and to make them feel afraid?
The 9/11 Commission's findings speak to us more about the danger within our own government, and of the deplorable status of information gathering and response to terrorist threats than of actual terrorists themselves. Am I horrified by the findings? Yes. Should I be responding to these findings by quaking with fear? No.
A responsible reaction to the Commission findings is one which has the people of this country becoming better informed about the overall status of our country, and in this year in particular voting accordingly. An irresponsible reaction to the Commission findings is one which in any way implies that the sky is falling. We were in no more danger on that day than we were the day before. Your headline reflected absolutely no accuracy nor integrity in the reporting of that.
You defend yourself by saying "Many newspapers carried the same headline." Good for them. Many people in this country can't do simple math in their heads either. Should I personally be striving to imitate them? I would think that journalistic integrity would inspire you to be a better news leader. If it does not, then what exactly is it inspiring you to do?
I'm going to skip over your rather condescending use of capitalization as you inform my mother that "those were the EXACT words of Thomas Kean" as I would have thought the fact that my mother wrote to you about the content of that very article would have been enough to indicate to you that she had read it, rather than imagining the it in some sort of dream that came to her in the night, and instead address your final words of "Our country has a choice. Delude ourselves about our level of preparedness or accept that we live in dangerous times and do our utmost to prevent future attacks."
Sir, our news media has a choice. Attempt to somehow accurately reflect the actual events going on in our country and the world around us, or accept the fact that if they make the decision to only highlight the bits of information which they know will scare people and therefore sell papers that the members of their buying public are going to notice the attempt for what it is, and call them on their humbug accordingly.
You went for the cheap shot, it was noticed. You could have responded to that like an adult, but you didn't. I'm now especially glad that I never renewed my subscription to your paper. It's a testament to how forgiving my mother is that she doesn't cancel hers.
Yours sincerely,
[TBQ]
The publisher wrote back in a way that was so patronizing that I would have happily ripped him a new one just on general princple. But since he's aiming this bullshit at my mother?
Oh no. That was a very dumb move for him.
Dear [publisher]:
My mother, [TBQ's mom], wrote to you recently regarding the July 22 [newspaper] headline of "We are not safe." As I was interested in how that correspondence turned out, she was kind enough to share with me the letter that you wrote back to her.
I am writing to you now not as my mother's daughter, though that does certainly help, but as someone who lives in the community where you present yourself as an ideal source of news and information.
Sir, I did not in any way appreciate the tone of the letter that you sent. The woman writing to you is not stupid. She educates herself about the world around her. She reads newspapers and magazines, and listens to the radio. This was not an ignorant individual who was writing to you, but someone who is savvy about the media and about how bias shapes the flow of information.
You write to her "Contrary to what you suggest, journalistic integrity requires us to accurately report what the 9/11 Commission is telling us." Sir, that was precisely my mother's point. She was asking for an accurate report of the 9/11 Commission's findings, not a sensationalistic headline more worthy of a tabloid. "We are not safe"? I'm sorry, did the terror alert go up that day? Did reports come in of an impending attack on our country? Were we all to batten down the hatches, and hide in our bunkers with our knives and canned goods? No? Then what exactly was the goal of that headline if not to shock people, and to make them feel afraid?
The 9/11 Commission's findings speak to us more about the danger within our own government, and of the deplorable status of information gathering and response to terrorist threats than of actual terrorists themselves. Am I horrified by the findings? Yes. Should I be responding to these findings by quaking with fear? No.
A responsible reaction to the Commission findings is one which has the people of this country becoming better informed about the overall status of our country, and in this year in particular voting accordingly. An irresponsible reaction to the Commission findings is one which in any way implies that the sky is falling. We were in no more danger on that day than we were the day before. Your headline reflected absolutely no accuracy nor integrity in the reporting of that.
You defend yourself by saying "Many newspapers carried the same headline." Good for them. Many people in this country can't do simple math in their heads either. Should I personally be striving to imitate them? I would think that journalistic integrity would inspire you to be a better news leader. If it does not, then what exactly is it inspiring you to do?
I'm going to skip over your rather condescending use of capitalization as you inform my mother that "those were the EXACT words of Thomas Kean" as I would have thought the fact that my mother wrote to you about the content of that very article would have been enough to indicate to you that she had read it, rather than imagining the it in some sort of dream that came to her in the night, and instead address your final words of "Our country has a choice. Delude ourselves about our level of preparedness or accept that we live in dangerous times and do our utmost to prevent future attacks."
Sir, our news media has a choice. Attempt to somehow accurately reflect the actual events going on in our country and the world around us, or accept the fact that if they make the decision to only highlight the bits of information which they know will scare people and therefore sell papers that the members of their buying public are going to notice the attempt for what it is, and call them on their humbug accordingly.
You went for the cheap shot, it was noticed. You could have responded to that like an adult, but you didn't. I'm now especially glad that I never renewed my subscription to your paper. It's a testament to how forgiving my mother is that she doesn't cancel hers.
Yours sincerely,
[TBQ]
