Home > View from the Newsroom > Archives > 2008 > July > 11 > Entry
About SB200
This is rich.
The editor of the little feature paper in town had this to say in his column today about SB200, the so-called “bathroom bill:”
“One can only wonder: If the other newspaper had done the right thing and pointed out the twisted smear campaign for what it is, would it have reaped the revenue benefits of the Focus on the Family smear ad?
“If you read my column last week, you’ll remember I stressed the benefits of two newspaper voices in a community.”
Let’s deconstruct those two paragraphs. They have much to say about “newspaper voices.” First, Mr. Nichols is talking about editorial positions. Editorials are a journalistic endeavor about which the little paper knows not much. In its five years or so of existence, it has published at most a dozen editorials. (We publish that many every week, and have been doing it for more than 100 years.) The other paper has taken such gutsy positions as warning people to not drink and drive at Country Jam, and such happy talk as urging some guy to raise money for some charity.
Not that there’s anything wrong with discouraging drinking and driving, and the fundraising effort for the Muscular Dystrophy Association was no doubt worthwhile. We occasionally pat people on the back on our editorial page, too. But an editorial page is much more than that. It’s where serious discussions take place about serious issues. It’s where readers go to be challenged. It’s one of the places where public policy is shaped. To the best of my knowledge the other paper has never endorsed a candidate, nor has it dealt substantively with any significant issue.
When it comes to editorials, there is only one newspaper voice in town. It’s The Daily Sentinel. There’s really only one voice when it comes to everything else, too, but Josh’s column was specifically about editorials.
And oh, about that claim that we didn’t say anything about SB200 because anti-SB200 forces were advertising in our paper. That is simply a cheap shot of the highest order. I’m not sure what to say about it other than it has no basis in fact. Around here we work hard at making sure our opinions are based on a set of facts. Readers may look at the same set of facts and arrive at a different conclusion. But the facts will be there. That’s something else that sets us apart.
Comments