By Curmudgeon
There 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."
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
18 comments:
well it seem to me that the newspaper does not pay any taxes and therefor should not be givin the right to critize our government, as the taxpayer have the right to do. so how about it standard when are you going to start paying your fair share of taxes like every one else?
I just canceled my subscription. I'll get my accurate news right here.
This morning's editorial in the Sub Standard Examiner is a prime example of why they are slip sliding into irrelevance with each new edition.
This editorial board is about as clued into what is going on in Ogden as Shrub is of what's happening every where else in America beside Utah.
My mother would have said,This is the pot calling the kettle grily ass.
Anon:
Sorry to hear you cancelled your subscription. The solution to whatever problems the SE has [and I think the news operation has fewer than the editorial side myself] is to critique shortfalls, and to encourage better work. Not to pull the plug on the whole thing. That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Mother, baseball...
Curious as to why you think the SE pays no taxes....
A few things I've learned since moving to good ol' Ogden, Utah:
1) Do not criticize the President of the United States of America.
2) Do not ask questions of the Mayor of this fine city.
3) Do not be critical of the mighty Standard Examiner.
Well, the Council Staff has clarified the process of applying for Glasmann's seat.
Also, the Council has engaged the services of H. Craig Hall to represent them and help them wend their way through the gondola morass.
If you have a good candidate for Glassman's seat...do NOT publish here...sure to jinx!
The whole gang o' thieves will be O U T in 2007.
Hang on.
At the risk of adding to the SE's inferiority complex, anyone catch Kristen Moulton's fine article in today's SL TRIBUNE?
This woman can write. Not only that, but she gives background, and quotes from Feeny..... and then Glasmann telling the world of the 'VAST ACCOMPLISHMENTS' of the Godfrey administration.
When did Bill ever tell any of us who campaigned and voted for him that there WERE vast acomplishments from the Godfrey Administration?
Money talks, si?
Actually Kristen's editor mistakenly deleted the word before "vast" in Glasmann's quote. It actually should have read: "...half vast accomplishments..."
That was NOT nice ED.....
Curm....EXCELLENT article as usual...
I loved the photo of our beautiful municipal building in that editorial. Something of which Ogden can be justifiably proud.
But more to the point, after a number of other hints the Editorial Page has dropped over the course of the summer, now that you've read today's blast at "cowards who lurk in the blogosphere penning scurrilous anonymous rants," can there be any remaining doubt that Don Porter is one of our most avid readers? Thanks for the flattery, Don.
Standard Examiner, George Bush, Mayor Godfrey, Chief Greiner, just want to silence anyone who has better ideas.
I have never read anything so funny when it wasn't meant to be! Don't you all feel so sorry for Don Porter and the POOR MAYOR?! What would Godfrey do if he didn't have Don Porter to put in a good word for him, in hopes that people can't see through Porter's murky, muddlesome gibberish?
Porter has refused to print many, MANY letters that have been sent in when they opposed the gondola and sale of the Mt. Ogden Golf Course, no matter how well written or logical they were, and depending on who the author of the letter was, he would offer to print it on the "Opinion" page if it was cut down to 250 words, instead of printing it as "Another Opinion." But he always has space for HIS opinion! Talk about liking to hear your own voice! The "Editorial" column isn't enough for him, he has to force more of his garbage on the readership of the sub-standard rag he works for! What a joke he is! I have news for him -- I don't read ANYTHING that is written by HIM! He is a a disgrace to the SE and to all newspaper editors! He whines about people posting on the blogs annonymously, but when he writes criticizing the Council, the police, the Legislature or whoever happens to be his target, his name isn't printed after the article! Come on, Don! Apply the same standards to yourself that you complain about of others! Who's gonna believe you after you've made such an ass of yourself?!
By the way, how does it feel to be ripped up one side and down the other in public? Do you like it?
John Smith:
I don't know exactly how the editorial board works at the SE, but at most papers I'm familiar with, editorials have to be approved by that board. Sometimes the actual text of an editorial is the work of several people [one primary draft by one person undegoes edits and redrafting by members of the board], sometimes an editorial is the work of a single writer but is endorsed by the board and so becomes "its" opinion. And occasionally, papers will print a "signed editorial" which usually means the publisher wanted to make a point and excercised his authority to make it [the board's opinion aside] on the editorial page.
Your post implies that all editorial policy [from the text of SE editorials to the selection of op ed pieces to print] are the decisions of one man, Mr. Porter. Possibly. Possibly not. If fact, at the SE, probably not. Some of the SE editorials are very well written. They hold together very well as pieces of expository prose. Then there are editorials like the one we are talking about here which are rhetorical messes. I doubt therefor that all SE editorials are composed by the same person.
I wonder, does anyone know how the editorial board works at the SE? How editorial topics are decided upon, how the text is composed [i.e. by who and how?], etc? Be interesting to know. Myself, I've never known a paper, a modern urban paper that is, at which all editorial policy and composition is in the hands of a single person. Perhaps it is at the SE, though I doubt it. But it would be useful to know.
Curmudgeon, I don't know how the "Board" works, but I have this "gut feeling" that the "Board" often gives Porter a free hand. The other editors at the SE are not as vindictive and small-minded as Porter. As one, who has dealt with him personally, and heard from others who have also, the "attack" and poorly written editorials are Porter's. There was a big decline in the quality of the editorials when Porter was promoted to be the Editor when Flora Ogan retired. I didn't agree with her very often, but at least she knew how to write and make a point. Porter should have remained as the movie critic. He's out of his league on the editorial page.
Don Porter had a phone discussion with Mitch Moyes about a year or so ago, and Don didn't like Mitch's views...rec center BONDING, RR Museum, etc...he was very patronizing and rude. Mitch, in making a point that we usually are treated the way we've treated others, made the comment, " what goes around, comes around."
Porter blew his top and said, "are you threatening me?'
Mitch was stunned. 'Of course not...that's an expression I was taught in my childhood...the way you treat others will come back....."
Here's the rest of the story:
Porter called the police and filed a report that Moyes had threatened him!
Porter could be mayor. He's mean,vengeful and small-minded. What a wuss.
New comments are not allowed.