A response to the Day
One of the nice things about having a blog is
that you can have the last word, at least to a limited (in my case, extremely
limited) audience.
Recently the New London Day ran this editorial cartoon:
I wrote the following letter to the Day:
On September 14th the Day chose to print an editorial cartoon that alleges that Bill Clinton ignored the threat of terrorism and did nothing in response to the terrorist acts that took place on his watch. In light of the controversy surrounding the libelous ABC movie "The Path to 9-11", the Day's decision to print the cartoon amounts to an endorsement of the libel that the cartoon affirms.
The Editors of the Day were always more concerned with Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct than they have been with George Bush's attempts to repeal the Constitution, or with Bush's obvious incompetence in dealing with the terrorist threat. But one would have thought that you would at least have taken the time to familiarize yourselves with the historical record, which is undisputed by anyone other than right wing fantasists. Richard Clarke, ABC's own terrorism expert, has branded the movie's allegations against Clinton as totally untrue. Clarke, along with the 9-11 Commission, recognized that Clinton aggressively sought to find and capture bin Laden, going to the length of holding weekly meetings to monitor those efforts. That number stacks up well next to the zero minutes that Bush devoted to going after bin Laden before September 11th. At no time, as the movie implies, did Clinton refuse to authorize any attempt to capture bin Laden. At no time, as the cartoon implies, did Clinton ignore the problem, or brush it aside, as Bush did in August of 2001.
There is such a thing as truth, something the Day owes to its readers. It does them, and the historical record, a disservice by endorsing the lies that ABC foisted on the American public. You should be ashamed to be complicit in the right wing's attempts to re-write history.
I'm many things, but not completely stupid. You can see by the second sentence of the letter that I anticipated the Day's response. I have learned, however, that if you actually try to develop an argument in a letter to the Day, they will refuse to run it on the grounds that it's too long. In any event, they printed the letter, and added the following comment:
The Day's Opinion and Commentary pages contain a diversity of views. Publication of these views does not constitute an endorsement by the Day.
It's their standard dodge, of course.
The Day does not have its own editorial cartoonist, for which we can be thankful. The cartoons it runs (right next to its own editorials, which presumably do reflect the Day's opinions) are those it chooses out of all the cartoons produced and available to it through the services to which it subscribes. So, in the first place, the selection of a cartoon reflects an editorial judgment by the Day that, at the very least, the "opinion" being presented is somehow worth considering. The placement of a cartoon also speaks volumes. There it is, right next to the paper's own editorials. The opinion pieces are on the facing page.
Now, maybe I'm splitting hairs, but in my opinion, an "opinion" is a conclusion drawn from facts. If the facts upon which I base my opinion are bald faced lies, then not only is my opinion probably of questionable validity, but I am a liar if I assert the fact without foundation. The cartoon in question contains an "opinion" somewhere in there, but assertions of facts predominate. And those assertions are, each and every one of them, lies. The Day chose to run those lies when it knew or should have known that that is exactly what they were. At the very least, the Day is endorsing the idea that it is legitimate to engage in a public debate over this terribly important issue based on an intentionally distorted historical record.
There is a difference between allowing a broad range of debate within your pages and printing as fact that which is untrue. The Day is not alone in washing its hands of any responsibility for this sort of tripe. The New York Times prints David Brook's flights of fancy on a regular basis. His propensity to make up the facts to suit his argument has been well documented, but apparently, so long as it's called opinion, and it's from a right wing perspective, it's okay. This, by the way, from a media that is perfectly comfortable with attributing the opinions of commenters to the blogs on which they comment.
So I stand by my position. The Day chose to run a cartoon that it knew propagated falsehoods. It did that, I think (see, this is an opinion coming) because it has never gotten over it's fixation with Clinton's zipper, and it can't bring itself to acknowledge that Clinton was, in truth and in fact, an extremely able president who did a great job under incredibly adverse circumstances. It has never been able to bring itself to be as morally outraged about a war based on lies or an official policy of torture than it was about a private party blow job.
Recently the New London Day ran this editorial cartoon:
I wrote the following letter to the Day:
On September 14th the Day chose to print an editorial cartoon that alleges that Bill Clinton ignored the threat of terrorism and did nothing in response to the terrorist acts that took place on his watch. In light of the controversy surrounding the libelous ABC movie "The Path to 9-11", the Day's decision to print the cartoon amounts to an endorsement of the libel that the cartoon affirms.
The Editors of the Day were always more concerned with Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct than they have been with George Bush's attempts to repeal the Constitution, or with Bush's obvious incompetence in dealing with the terrorist threat. But one would have thought that you would at least have taken the time to familiarize yourselves with the historical record, which is undisputed by anyone other than right wing fantasists. Richard Clarke, ABC's own terrorism expert, has branded the movie's allegations against Clinton as totally untrue. Clarke, along with the 9-11 Commission, recognized that Clinton aggressively sought to find and capture bin Laden, going to the length of holding weekly meetings to monitor those efforts. That number stacks up well next to the zero minutes that Bush devoted to going after bin Laden before September 11th. At no time, as the movie implies, did Clinton refuse to authorize any attempt to capture bin Laden. At no time, as the cartoon implies, did Clinton ignore the problem, or brush it aside, as Bush did in August of 2001.
There is such a thing as truth, something the Day owes to its readers. It does them, and the historical record, a disservice by endorsing the lies that ABC foisted on the American public. You should be ashamed to be complicit in the right wing's attempts to re-write history.
I'm many things, but not completely stupid. You can see by the second sentence of the letter that I anticipated the Day's response. I have learned, however, that if you actually try to develop an argument in a letter to the Day, they will refuse to run it on the grounds that it's too long. In any event, they printed the letter, and added the following comment:
The Day's Opinion and Commentary pages contain a diversity of views. Publication of these views does not constitute an endorsement by the Day.
It's their standard dodge, of course.
The Day does not have its own editorial cartoonist, for which we can be thankful. The cartoons it runs (right next to its own editorials, which presumably do reflect the Day's opinions) are those it chooses out of all the cartoons produced and available to it through the services to which it subscribes. So, in the first place, the selection of a cartoon reflects an editorial judgment by the Day that, at the very least, the "opinion" being presented is somehow worth considering. The placement of a cartoon also speaks volumes. There it is, right next to the paper's own editorials. The opinion pieces are on the facing page.
Now, maybe I'm splitting hairs, but in my opinion, an "opinion" is a conclusion drawn from facts. If the facts upon which I base my opinion are bald faced lies, then not only is my opinion probably of questionable validity, but I am a liar if I assert the fact without foundation. The cartoon in question contains an "opinion" somewhere in there, but assertions of facts predominate. And those assertions are, each and every one of them, lies. The Day chose to run those lies when it knew or should have known that that is exactly what they were. At the very least, the Day is endorsing the idea that it is legitimate to engage in a public debate over this terribly important issue based on an intentionally distorted historical record.
There is a difference between allowing a broad range of debate within your pages and printing as fact that which is untrue. The Day is not alone in washing its hands of any responsibility for this sort of tripe. The New York Times prints David Brook's flights of fancy on a regular basis. His propensity to make up the facts to suit his argument has been well documented, but apparently, so long as it's called opinion, and it's from a right wing perspective, it's okay. This, by the way, from a media that is perfectly comfortable with attributing the opinions of commenters to the blogs on which they comment.
So I stand by my position. The Day chose to run a cartoon that it knew propagated falsehoods. It did that, I think (see, this is an opinion coming) because it has never gotten over it's fixation with Clinton's zipper, and it can't bring itself to acknowledge that Clinton was, in truth and in fact, an extremely able president who did a great job under incredibly adverse circumstances. It has never been able to bring itself to be as morally outraged about a war based on lies or an official policy of torture than it was about a private party blow job.
Posted: Saturday - September 16, 2006 at 10:53 AM
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:19 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:19 PM