Mischaracterizing John McCommas
BIAS ALERT! Whoop! Whoop! Whoop!
Here we go again. OK it's a small thing, but why did the Norwich Bulletin Editorial Page Editor take out the quotes out of this sentence I submitted with my letter to the editor?
This is it -- Case in point, in 2006 State Senator Donald Williams (D-Brooklyn) proposed a bill "designed to ensure truthful campaign advertising and fight negative campaigning".
In the paper today on the other hand it reads: Case in point, in 2006 state Sen. Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, proposed a bill designed to ensure truthful campaign advertising and fight negative campaigning.
It is exactly the same thing except the quotes are missing. I put in quotes and in the newspaper *POOF*. The quotes are gone! Where did they go? Hummmmm? The Twilight Zone maybe?
Now I meant a certain thing when I put those words in quotes and now that the quotes have been removed, the meaning of what I wrote is now different. Was this done deliberatly?
You Betcha!
The quotes I used was meant to mock the original source of the quote, which was Bulletin Buddy Don Williams. I used Don Williams' own words against him -- which was very clever of me if I do say so myself. My Mother always told me I was a clever boy...
Now with the quotes removed I am made to look as if I am characterizing Williams' anti--First Amendment legislation he proposed as being designed to ensure truthful campaign advertising and fight negative campaigning. Who in the world can be against negative campaigning except an hair-splitting old crank like me? I might as well spouted off a letter against kittens and sunshine and walks in the park.
Now when you put those words back in quotes like I had them -- "designed to ensure truthful campaign advertising and fight negative campaigning"....there is a subtle difference!
See? Without quotes this is do-gooder legislation no critic can touch it with a ten foot pool without looking foolish. WITH QUOTES this is Soviet Union-inspired propaganda.
I meant the latter of course. No matter. At least most of my message made it through unmolested and unaltered. But it just goes to prove once again that editors can not resist tempering down the messages critical of them.
Gotcha Mr. Hackett. You got caught again.
Here we go again. OK it's a small thing, but why did the Norwich Bulletin Editorial Page Editor take out the quotes out of this sentence I submitted with my letter to the editor?
This is it -- Case in point, in 2006 State Senator Donald Williams (D-Brooklyn) proposed a bill "designed to ensure truthful campaign advertising and fight negative campaigning".
In the paper today on the other hand it reads: Case in point, in 2006 state Sen. Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, proposed a bill designed to ensure truthful campaign advertising and fight negative campaigning.
It is exactly the same thing except the quotes are missing. I put in quotes and in the newspaper *POOF*. The quotes are gone! Where did they go? Hummmmm? The Twilight Zone maybe?
Now I meant a certain thing when I put those words in quotes and now that the quotes have been removed, the meaning of what I wrote is now different. Was this done deliberatly?
You Betcha!
The quotes I used was meant to mock the original source of the quote, which was Bulletin Buddy Don Williams. I used Don Williams' own words against him -- which was very clever of me if I do say so myself. My Mother always told me I was a clever boy...
Now with the quotes removed I am made to look as if I am characterizing Williams' anti--First Amendment legislation he proposed as being designed to ensure truthful campaign advertising and fight negative campaigning. Who in the world can be against negative campaigning except an hair-splitting old crank like me? I might as well spouted off a letter against kittens and sunshine and walks in the park.
Now when you put those words back in quotes like I had them -- "designed to ensure truthful campaign advertising and fight negative campaigning"....there is a subtle difference!
See? Without quotes this is do-gooder legislation no critic can touch it with a ten foot pool without looking foolish. WITH QUOTES this is Soviet Union-inspired propaganda.
I meant the latter of course. No matter. At least most of my message made it through unmolested and unaltered. But it just goes to prove once again that editors can not resist tempering down the messages critical of them.
Gotcha Mr. Hackett. You got caught again.
Labels: McCommas, media bias, Ray Hackett
posted by mccommas at 8:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home