Bits and pieces

Bits and pieces today I suppose.

The editorial piece in today's S-T, relative to its opinion/letter policy.  Interesting.  Best line from the piece

And all of those opinions, including those of the editorial board, have nothing to do with the many news decisions our staff journalists make each day. 

Of course the paper is mainly referring to its own "opinions".

Whatever gets written, in whatever paper, or reported on any news media outlet, will always be read/viewed/heard by any individual with a certain bias.  Indeed, there is some justification to that. To say no opinion ever makes it in any piece is I think a bit inaccurate.  No doubt there are attempts to remain neutral especially in the "report" type pieces.

But like it or not, editorial content seeps into everything, from headlines, to the teaser ads, to the way a story is presented. More often than not the poor reporters take the blame, but often enough stories do have a tendency to get jazzed up a bit.  

Just life.  Nothing new.  Nothing earth shattering, just perhaps more prevalent than in the good old days.

The "making you" provide your name and hometown, well I can absolutely see that for a newspaper.   But for requiring the same, the first thing that would be flung back at the newspaper is it is making the letter up. Heck I have been accused of posting "anonymous" comments here. 

I have certainly been blamed for the content of comments, even "signed" ones.  Publicly blamed in fact.  But it the relative scheme of things, I don't care if people post anonymously or not.  

How much true courage it actually takes to sign your name to a letter or a post is I think a matter I would be willing to debate.  While the "pen" can at times be mightier than the sword, and certainly having the "courage of ones convictions" to act at times presents difficulties, it is a heck of a lot easier decision to pick up a pen and write, than truly fight for your convictions.  

Don't get me wrong, it isn't always an easy thing to do, write an opinion.  In certain instances some people may have legitimate reasons not too. 

In fact historically, a great many writings of significant stature were penned under pseudonyms. Authors still do it all the time.  Books written under a different name.  The constitutional debate in the late 1770's saw a host of prominent political figures using pseudonyms.  

Granted, nothing within the pages of this blog is going to be viewed with the same critical eye as the "Federalist Papers", however anonymous is not necessarily an awful thing.  

I agree with the sentiment of many critics when it is used however.  Valid points are often overlooked or dismissed simply because people place more weight behind who is making a statement rather than the statement itself.  This however can be a also be a reason for posting anonymously I suppose. If they know its you they may not listen.

Anyway I am digressing, I think.

Back to the article.  Not sure about how strictly the rule is that you can't make up your own facts.  Seen more than a few "letters" where at best the rule was loosely applied.  One recently where the paper took the step to actually print a response which one can only deem a retraction.

But hey, historically speaking, the facts have never gotten in the way of a good story.

The above subtle jabs aside, we should consider ourselves very fortunate to have a daily newspaper, with a willingness to print the letters and the "other views" that it does.  As biased as you think it may be to your side of the issue, more often than not the people on the opposite side of your issue feel the same way.  

Enough with that ...

Three interesting conversations yesterday.  Three people from different demographics.  Each expressing the same exact sentiment.  They are sick of the whole turbines issue and the board of health "race".  They want an end to the matters.  I did not ask any one of them who they are were voting for.  You ask that question, and then you need you answer it when it is asked of you.

Anyway, still interesting.  Still insightful because it usually isn't hard to tell who someone is going to vote for, assuming they actually vote.  It is in fact clear though that more and more people seem to be viewing this race as a one issue matter.  Assuming all three people vote, which is very unlikely I grant you, my guess is one candidate is behind 3 to 0.

Sad to say, it seems an undercurrent in this election isn't about unity. It isn't about healing. It is about trying to get to an end result. Most people talking, to me anyway, seem to understand September 9th won't completely end the matter, but they are viewing it as a definite step to an end of it.  

It is a near given no matter who wins September 9th, the battle will continue to be waged on some fronts.  I get that so no need to remind me no one intends to give up.  

Margin of victory and/or turnout will be indicative however to just how and where those battles get fought, and chances of any success through local action, in my opinion anyway.

The fallout from the recent events and last April's election will be with us for years.  Whatever healing occurs in this town over these issues is going to leave a very ugly scar as a reminder. 

I think that is enough of everything for today.  

Be safe.