Nearly every morning, as predicted, there is a venomous
attack against our president or our congresswoman. It’s getting old. This paper
has made a clear choice between being a journalistic-based or politically-based
organization. Unfortunately, they have chosen to be political, much like most
media outlets today.
So, this is my venomous attack on him.
I'm responding to Harrison Francett's letter
attacking the Post Star because "Nearly every morning there is a venomous
attack against our president or our congresswoman. It's getting old."
Since it's so frequent, it seems examples would've been easy to come by, but
alas, not a one. What are really getting old are the venomous attacks on our
daily paper, here and there, as "liberal media" without providing any
basis for that. If there's an article or op-ed you find unfair write a letter
about it.
In that same
day's paper, Rep. Stefanik "did not state her views on DACA
specifically." There was some boilerplate from her spokesman about fixing
immigration. No real opinion. Lots of us have a problem with the no comment
thing. Chuck Schumer and Andrew Cuomo have given opinions on DACA, even if you
don't agree with them. Most Congress people, even Republicans, have held more
than one town hall since January. If enough upstate folks share Mr. Francett's
view that she's approachable and independent then she'll be re-elected next
November. As a reminder, the Post Star did endorse her re-election last year.
Also in that
day's paper was an article reporting that "staunch 'resist' Democrat"
Schumer, along with Nancy Pelosi, had teamed up with President Trump to raise
the debt limit. Maybe the president can work with Democrats to get an
immigration bill since Congressional Republicans seem incapable of governing.
Is it a venomous attack to report that Trump is making agreements with Chuck
and Nancy? Probably in some circles.
If there's an edition of the Post Star that makes venomous attacks on Trump and Stefanik nearly every morning then I'm receiving the wrong one.
It might be interesting to ask such people what type of attack, or even criticism, they would accept as being non-venomous. I have a feeling they just want to de-legitimize any criticism because it's hitting too close to home for comfort.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that. That's a wonderful question.
ReplyDeleteThis continuing attack on the press is just so destructive. It's nice that WaPo and the NYT have seen their circulations go up. My little local struggles, tho. It would be disheartening not to have it.
A year later my comments stand. For the record my letter was originally accompanied with 4 pages of supporting evidence and that was shared with The Post Star's Editor. They also limit letters to 300 words which prohibited the countless examples provided that still hold today. Ever ask yourself why your beloved Post Star's circulation is down to 15,000?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I do accept criticism of our representatives and have done so myself. However there are a lot of positive things these two do for us that never see the light of day in biased newspapers like TPS. Instead of covering both sides of an issue and framing with facts (this used to be called journalism), they are very one-sided articles. If you don't see the bias, then you may bee blind to it. It's okay to not like a politician or disagree with them, but don't wave the flag of journalism and hide behind the First Amendment while printing absolute garbage in ink on paper. You wouldn't believe the positive feedback I received for that letter and how people wondered after your response what paper you were reading. It's all about perspective.
You wouldn't believe the positive feedback I received for that letter and how people wondered after your response what paper you were reading. It's all about perspective.
DeleteI'm sure you did receive a positive response. I have to wonder if that was a representative sample of the population, though.
And you say you gave the PS 4 pages of "supporting evidence" yet you put none of it in your letter to the editor.
DeleteYour letter was only 219 words and if you left off the bit about the legislation she passed you'd have had lots of words freed up to point out those "venomous attacks" so my opinion stands.
If you don't see the bias, then you may bee blind to it.
I see your bias against the PS with nothing to back it up.
My bad, you had 284 words. I missed part of it. In any case, you could have used the last half of the letter to continue what your point was and list examples of their attacks on Rep. Stefanik.
Delete