By CurmudgeonThere is a
long editorial in this morning's
SE that is truly remarkable for its, well, its silliness.
The editors begin by claiming that strong differences over the proposed sale of Ogden parklands to build a gondola system were "settling" when "along comes a nonsensical dust up over whether or not to remove Lift Ogden and Smart Growth Ogden yard signs."
"Fighting about
removing yard signs? Really, does it get any sillier than this?"
Where to start. How could this "fight" have been avoided? Well, only two ways I can think of. (a) The Mayor could have not issued his call for SGO and LO to take their signs down. Had he not done that, no "fight" would have developed. [But elsewhere the Editorial complains that the mayor is being picked on.] Does the Editorial Board think the Mayor should not have issued his call to have the signs removed? They don't say. (b) SGO could have acceded to the Mayor's request and asked its people to remove their signs. Does the Editorial Board think citizens groups should meekly defer to mayoral requests whether they think those requests wise or not? The editors do not say. Absent either (a) or (b) above, how could the "fight" have been avoided? The editorial does not say.
And what "fight"? The mayor made his request. LO said yes. SGO said no, and explained why in a letter to the mayor. Fight? The
SE editorial board has very low standards for defining what constitutes a fight. Even a rhetorical one.
The editorial goes on to complain that "People even duked it out over the Farmer's Market. How do you manage to fight of a
Farmers Market," they ask? Well, here's how: the city turns the Market's management over to people who try to make significant changes in how the market operates, changes that a great many who usually take part in the market, and that a great many who come to the market to shop, did not like. That's how. Again, what remedy for the disagreement --- cast as "duking it out" [rhetorical overkill once again]--- do the editors offer? None. But the list of things the
SE editorial board apparently thinks Ogdenites should not have differed strongly on include: mall redevelopment, the Wal- Mart project, Union Station, the RiverFront project, the Shupe Williams building matter, the Marshall White Center, Ft. Buenaventura, First Night celebrations, the Street Festival and more.
"Much more."They go on to complain that "too many noisemakers enjoy the sound of their own voices to suddenly become reasonable." This is too funny for words. The Editorial Board of the
SE accusing
others of making noise over public events? [Gee, I thought that was one of the things
newspapers were supposed to do ... and do especially on their editorial pages.] The
SE editorial board, which frequently provides one of its own members with space to print his own op ed pieces on public affairs, across from the editorial page he edits, complaining about
other people liking too much the sound of their own voices? Are they serious?
The unfortunate rhetorical overkill that characterizes the editorial continues unabated: "the mayor can't blink without being criticized." Really? Examples? [None offered.] And then the editors sink into some unseemly whining:
About the only thing that both sides agree on is that they hate the Standard Examiner for reporting such conflicts." This is simply put, nonsense. The Editorial Board's equating criticism of the paper's performance in reporting the news accurately and fairly with
hating the
SE is simply nonsense. If this editorial is what constitutes serious discussion at the highest levels of the SE, then Ogden is indeed in more trouble than we suspected. Why? Because [my opinion here],
no city can be a truly healthy, vibrant and prospering one without a serious, independent and
good daily paper. Can't happen. Not in our political system.
The editorial goes on to argue that Ogden would be much better off if people on both sides [of all the issues it mentioned above? Of only the gondola issue? The editorial does not say] would spend their time "pulling in the same direction." The problem is, dear Editorial Board, that people in Ogden cannot agree on which direction is the best one in which to pull.
There are, sprinkled here and there, almost at random, some good points. The editorial condemns those who post
"scurrilous anonymous rants" on blogs.
The editorial piously announces that the
SE approves of public debate and discussion [the entire previous editorial notwithstanding]: "Public debate is one thing. We celebrate that. Criticism and alternative ideas in the service of a worthy goal are good." And how, pray tell, are we poor pitiful subscribers supposed to tell the difference between a "fight" [baaaad, says the
SE editorial board] and "public debate" and the offering of "alternative ideas" [gooood says the
SE editorial board]? The editors do not say.
However unhappy it makes the editors of the
SE, we have here in the US and in Utah even, and yes, a [more or less] functioning democracy. Americans disagree, often loudly, often passionately about public policy and the actions of their governments. Debate, discussion, sometimes loud and often passionate, kind of comes with the territory. It's part [but only part] of what makes a democracy vigorous, and alive and, in the end, successful. Certainly a
newspaper and certainly a newspapers
editorial board should be able to grasp that. If not.... well, then, all I can offer is the wisdom of President Harry Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."