The editor is on the wrong side of his own history.
Posted on 06/27/2015 2:53:29 PM PDT by Kaslin
Yesterday, the editorial board of PennLive/Patriot-News declared that the Supreme Court had closed off discussion of same-sex marriage permanently on their pages. Announcing that “these unions are now the law of the land” after the Obergefell decision, any written opposition to SSM would be morally equivalent to “publish[ing] those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.” After insulting a large portion of his readership by calling them bigots, editor John Micek attempts to hit reverse this morning with an apology.
Only first, Micek wants to say how truly wonderful he felt about Obergefell by describing its impact on one of his colleagues:
A smile lit up her face and there were tears in her eyes. Up until about 10 a.m. on Friday, my gay colleague sat on pins and needles, waiting to see if nine lawyers were about to throw the life and her and her partner into absolute upheaval.
We embraced and I offered my congratulations. And then I sat down and thought about what had just happened and what it meant to my other gay and lesbian colleagues who were rightfully celebrating Friday’s ruling as a victory for both love and equal protection under the law.
However, PennLive readers weren’t as enthusiastic, so Micek wanted to express “in the strongest possible terms” what kind of feedback and discussion he was willing to tolerate from the “racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic” readership Micek apparently believes he attracted. Oddly, Micek was surprised by the “unintended consequences” of assuming those who disagreed with him are nothing more than hateful bigots. One of those “unintended consequences” was being called a “fascist,” an accusation that seemingly surprised Micek, even though he was telling everyone that only his opinion would be tolerated in his newspaper.
After getting deluged with criticism, Micek decided to rethink his approach — but not before making himself the victim for a little while longer. Micek offers three points, and only the last even approaches an apology:
First: No one at PennLive and The Patriot-News is an opponent of the First Amendment. It’s a right that’s foundational to us as a people. And it’s a right for which many brave and noble men and women have given their lives. And I would never trample on that legacy or dishonor their sacrifice by limiting our readers’ right to express themselves in a civil way.
This is a dodge. The First Amendment wasn’t at issue with PennLive’s editorial (although it is in Obergefell), as the right to free speech does not include the right to publication. The issue was PennLive’s editorial practice and its contempt for dissent in any form, and its insult to people who oppose the Supreme Court’s ruling and its establishment of SSM by judicial fiat. The fact that this position was informed by an emotional moment in the newsroom makes PennLive appear even more puerile and shallow than Micek’s original declaration managed.
Next up, Micek apologizes for being a big victim of his meanie readers:
Second: And I cannot stress this one enough — that’s in a civil way. More than once yesterday I was referred to as “f****t-lover,” among other slurs. And that’s the point that I was trying to make with our statement: We will not publish such slurs any more than we would publish racist, sexist or anti-Semitic speech. There are ways to intelligently discuss an issue. The use of playground insults is not among them. And they are not welcome at PennLive/The Patriot-News.
Well, duh. No one at any newspapers publishes those kind of letters in the first place, unless they want to make the point that their readers are idiots. Micek acts as if he’s the first person in media to ever be called a bad name. Perhaps the Boss Emeritus can loan Micek one of her balls, and then they’d each have one. Let’s recall, though, what Micek wrote in the original editorial:
As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will very strictly limit op-Eds [sic] and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.
These unions are now the law of the land. And we will not publish such letters and op-Eds [sic] any more than we would publish those that are racist, sexist or anti-Semitic.
We have some major-league goalpost-moving from Micek in his second point. The original editorial didn’t state that PennLive was banning slurs, but any opposition to same-sex marriage. It was the opposition that Micek considered on par with “racist, sexist or anti-Semitic speech,” not just the slurs. Micek is misrepresenting the position he had taken less than 24 hours earlier in order to falsely position himself as a victim. He’s basically rewriting history.
Finally, Micek gets around to the point of his essay, which is to back away from his previous position:
Third: I fully recognize that there are people of good conscience and of goodwill who will disagree with Friday’s high court ruling. They include philosophers and men and women of the cloth whose objections come from deeply held religious and moral convictions that are protected by the very same First Amendment that allowed me to stick my foot in my mouth on Friday. They are, and always will be, welcome in these pages, along with all others of goodwill, who seek to have an intelligent and reasoned debate on the issues of the day.
Again, this wasn’t a First Amendment issue, but at least Micek finally allows that he erred in some fashion, rather than being victimized first by the “law of unintended consequences,” and then by readers. It was quite clear to anyone who reads English that “people of conscience and goodwill who disagree with Friday’s high court ruling” were not only not going to be considered for columns or letters entries, but that Micek and PennLive considered them on par with — I quote again — “racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic” people. These were the exact same people Micek was smearing less than 24 hours earlier, but suddenly they’re worthy of engagement. I wonder why.
So … where was the apology? It comes at the end, via Washington DC and every other politician who’s ever had to grudgingly retreat from their own stupidity:
But for those of you who were offended by what was intended as a very genuine attempt at fostering a civil discussion, I apologize.
Ah yes, the standard “sorry if you were offended by my brilliance” non-apology. How exactly is telling people to shut up “fostering a civil discussion”? How does offering a blanket smear of all critics of Obergefell as bigots “a very genuine attempt” at any kind of discussion? For that matter, how did Micek envision a “discussion” coming from his all-out ban on any opposing view in his newspaper? At the end of all this, Micek then offers an apology — not for his actions, not for all of his mean-spirited and sanctimonious posing, but because we turned out to be not quite as stupid as Micek believed we were.
Maybe Micek should stick with Play-Doh.
God created marriage, and only the Creator has the right to define it--and He did.
The editor is on the wrong side of his own history.
To apologize for his readers’ ‘misinterpretation of his intended words which were meant to allow full disagreement in a healthy fashion’ is sickening.
He needs to go back to his editorial room and get a few solid gay-cries in on behalf of his liberal friends.
This douchelord deserves every bit of abuse that’s coming his way.
I find it very interesting that people who make their living using the written and spoken word (lawyers, politicians, and newspaper editors) make such grievous errors when it comes to politically correct rants.
BTW - the best way to explain the true nature of the depth of his error is to stop buying his newspaper and tell his advertisers that you are looking for alternate sources because they advertise in such an intolerant newspaper.
If one side of a PC driven argument uses this tactic why can’t we?
P.S. I fought in a war where we weren’t allowed to do our missions IAW approved tactics, doctrine, and training. over 58,000 didn’t come. I lay awake at night wondering what our losses are going to be in the current armed conflict.
“love and equal protection under the law.” The pitiful and lazy editor should realize that everyone has full love and equal protection under God’s law and the US Constitution. The new “laws” from Obergefell are fake like the “marriage” it creates.
- On the merits of the case in question, Scalia was right.
- Freedom of the press pertains to the owner of a press - actual and potential.
- As to the PennLive/Patriot-News, its owners can, within the constraints of libel, print - or not print - what they wanna. For as long as their money holds out. If they go broke, that’s a different matter (I would say, “of course” - but nowadays . . . ).
- As to the potential owners of presses - that covers a lot of territory, considering how successful the Constitution’s Article 1 Section 8:
The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .has been in transforming the nature and cost of the “useful art” of publishing, from the one-page-at-a-time printing presses Ben Franklin worked with to the modern web site with video.So long as there is no government collusion with owners of presses, and so long as there is no Establishment press which has an obligation to publish all sides of controversial issues, freedom of the press is actual and legitimate.
The problem is that the government schools have propagandized the public with the absurd conceit that journalism is objective. Journalism which claims (or allows others to claim for it) that it is objective cannot actually be even trying to be objective. To try to be objective you must first study the reasons why you might not be objective. But if you have assumed a priori that you actually are objective, the necessary laborious effort of self-examination is short-circuited.
The assumption of objectivity is an assumption of absence of interest. The trouble is, journalism always has an interest - the desire to be believed, which is the desire to lead. In candid moments they will call it a desire “to make a difference.” This runs exactly counter to the interest of the general public, aptly stated by Theodore Roosevelt:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arenaThe journalist is “the critic” in that formulation, and the critic favors the opposite formulation, “You didn’t build that.” That is extreme skepticism - a.k.a., “cynicism."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.