Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:18 AM

  do editors read anymore?

  I would have expected you, as an editor, to be a better, more careful reader. Did you forget to read the next paragraph of Obama's response? Here, let me help you do your research:

  "I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now, where people feels like things as they are going right now aren't working, that we're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out.I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."

  Now, as you can *read,* Obama's entire 2nd paragraph clearly debunks any idea that he was endorsing Reagan's policies or Republican policies in general. If you should be in any doubt, the line "the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out" ought to be quite clear on that point. Moreover, why do you not recognize that he also includes JFK as a "transformational" president along with Reagan? Yes, he's trying to be conciliatory, but not to the extent that you would have him be. And no amount of analysis can dismiss the fact that his statements more clearly counter your fears.

  But more to the point: I know you *must* have read that paragraph, yes? Because, surely, as an *editor* with some training in the English language, you would understand that there is such a thing as context? And that to truncate quotations as you do or as the Clintons have done is not just to "overstate a little" a criticism, but to boldly lie about another candidate's words and intentions?

  Before you write me off as a fanatical Obama supporter, I must tell you: I'm an avid Edwards supporter. What I take extreme offense to is the fact that you are in a position to write an Op-ed piece that could actually sway people into believing the lies that the Clintons continue to broadcast. And that you would so boldly leave out a large important, in fact defining, chunk of Obama's reply.

  You are relying on the hope that your readers will not be close readers. And for someone who cares deeply about language and its ability to communicate some reflection of truth to the world, that is an utter betrayal.

  Hold yourself more accountable. And if you have a preference for Hillary (which it seems quite obviously to be the case), you should hold yourself extra-accountable that your facts are straight. Just because the Clintons lie in order to sensationalize divisions within the American populace and the Democratic party, doesn't mean that you - as a journalist - have that right.

  —siberia9 Read siberia9's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel