Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (1775)	6/4/2003 5:39:27 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793835

Sullivan was surprised by Shafer's column. SHAFER JUMPS SHIP: Slate's Jack Shafer has been doggedly defending Howell Raines now for months. And part of me admires Jack's willingness to see things from Raines' point of view; and, to some extent, he's right about the current piling on. (Hey, I was piling on before most of the others!) He's also right not to despise the concept of a rough-and-ready tyrant as editor of a great newspaper. But Shafer now concedes that much of his argument is now moot, given how the NYT staff has simply lost confidence in the executive editor and that the new battery of committees amounts to a kind of suspended abdication at the top. Raines, Shafer argues, is now the NYT's Nixon in July 1974. There's really no way forward but out:......Tick, tock, Arthur. Tick, tock. andrewsullivan.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (1775)	6/4/2003 5:43:50 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793835

Taronto picks up on some of the fallout from this switch away from PC. WATCHING THE NEWS Indian Summer In Jayson Blair's wake, newspapers inch away from political correctness. BY JAMES TARANTO National Review Wednesday, June 4, 2003 12:01 a.m. The recent scandals at the New York Times seem to be prompting some introspection at other newspapers. Last month John Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, issued a staff memo in which he faulted a story by reporter Scott Gold for liberal bias. Mr. Gold's article was about a law in Texas requiring that women seeking abortions receive counseling on the purported link between abortion and breast cancer. Mr. Carroll faulted Mr. Gold for using the slanted phrase "so-called counseling"; for failing to cite any scientist who believes there is a link between abortion and breast cancer (a minority view, to be sure); and for describing a legislator who backed the law as having "a professional background in property management," while making no similarly disparaging characterizations of its opponents. Explaining that he was "concerned about the perception--and the occasional reality--that the Times is a liberal, 'politically correct' newspaper," Mr. Carroll declared: "Occasionally we prove our critics right. We did so today." The Texas law may be misguided, but Mr. Gold should have stuck to the facts and let readers form their own opinions. Meanwhile the Minneapolis Star Tribune, probably the nation's most politically correct big-city daily, says it may drop its policy of censoring "offensive" names of sports teams--specifically, those with American Indian themes such as the Cleveland Indians and the Washington Redskins. Those of us not afflicted with PC humorlessness will surely mourn this policy, for it is a source of endless entertainment. For one thing, it's not a blanket ban; reporters may use quotes that contain an offending name. Thus if a player for, say, the Minnesota Vikings says, "We're gonna beat the Redskins," you can read about it in the Star Tribune. But a reporter paraphrasing the quote would have to write something like: "He said the Vikings would beat the football club from Washington." This raises another question: Why is it permissible to refer to the hometown Vikings, but not to the Braves, the Chiefs and so forth? One could argue that "Redskins" is racially offensive in a way that the other names aren't, but if the Cleveland Indians invidiously stereotype indigenous Americans, don't the Vikes do the same thing to Nordic types? Then there's the case of the Cincinnati Reds. In 2001, Star Tribune ombudsman Lou Gelfand announced that the paper was ending its embargo on this team's name, after an alert reader informed him that "Reds" has nothing to do with Indians and is, rather, a shortening of the team's original name, the Red Stockings. The paper hasn't yet adopted the policy change. The Associated Press reports that editor Anders Gyllenhaal plans to vet it first with local American Indian leaders and will make a decision only after they've responded. All hail the fearless, independent press. The AP adds that Mr. Gyllenhaal may replace the ban with a new set of "guidelines aimed at being sensitive to readers," including "using alternative logos for potentially offensive ones--a script 'I' instead of the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo logo, for example--and avoiding slang terms or abbreviations such as 'Skins' for 'Redskins.' " So a reference to "Skins" is more offensive than a reference to their color? In a staff memo, Mr. Gyllenhaal explained why he's contemplating the new policy: "At a time when newspaper accuracy and balance are constantly challenged, our commitment to direct and straight-forward reporting has to be the priority." It's hard to argue with that. But it does make one wonder: Just what was the priority before? opinionjournal.com