"My God, did you read this morning's editorial in the Tribune? What do you think is going on?"
Asked of me last night by a local Republican restaurateur.
 |
| Click: Sunday Mail Tribune Editorial |
The Medford Mail Tribune ran an editorial by its publisher. It shows why Twitter and Facebook comments erupt into flame wars. Rage is interesting. It is unhinged from reality, but it communicates unfiltered emotion.
It pulls people in.
Southern Oregon readers of
the local newspaper woke up to an editorial that shows signs of being printed as written, an un-edited first draft. It was sort of like a series of Tweets. Or an outburst of Facebook comments.
the local newspaper woke up to an editorial that shows signs of being printed as written, an un-edited first draft. It was sort of like a series of Tweets. Or an outburst of Facebook comments.
***Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris lead to Stalin and Hitler!
***Social Security isn't working!
***"Useful fools!"
***"We will lose our freedom, then soon after our standard of living. And no one on the planet will be safe!"
***It isn't safe for government to have money!
What is going on is the twitter-fication of local newspapers.
The great irony is that a newspaper is supposed to be the alternative to social media journalism. Increasingly Americans--especially young ones--get their news from web feeds, from Facebook and its comments, from Twitter, from YouTube. At its best it can be called "citizen journalism" and at its worst, gossip, flame wars, and trolling. On the right people decry most newspapers as purveyors of "fake news." On the left people decry “corporate media."
Presumably newspapers, especially their editorials, are the alternative, a place for thoughtful, considered context, done in 750-word chunks that take a reader three or four minutes to absorb, and worth it because the author gave it some consideration. Editorials are not tweets.
Publisher Steve Saslow’s editorial is courageous, pulling his newspaper into the new paradigm for getting his message out. He adopts the Twitter, Facebook comment style and places it into a newspaper editorial context, saying extreme things, things many of the traditional readers of his newspaper will think unhinged. His editorial isn't thoughtful or wise, but it is interesting, in the new way of Twitter flames and trolling.
He grabs attention, calling Democrats nothing less than the road to wealth confiscation, dictatorship, the loss of freedom, and murder. Really? Sanders, Harris, and the other Democrats--and not Trump--are the imminent slippery-slope threat toward Stalin-Hitler-Mao style authoritarian totalitarianism?
He cites Social Security as something not working out. Really? Most people I know think it is a pretty good system for keeping the elderly out of poverty. He asks how it's working for me. Answer: pretty darned well. I get it. I like it.
He wrote "Taxing the rich, the theme of the Democratic Party, is a non-starter." Really? We have had a progressive income tax for a century and it is how we pay for the government we demand.
He wrote, "Money in the hands of government is never a good thing." Really? Never? Who else would he trust to manage the national defense, and how would they do it without money?
The editorial is courageous, too, in letting itself serve as a cautionary note on the risks of instant write-and-distribute do it yourself opinions. The editorial headline contains a hint. "Controlling money controls power." Saslow owns the newspaper. No one on staff was in a position to warn him he risked looking oddly extreme.
No one can tell Trump that an early morning Tweet is Ill considered and unwise, nor can anyone stop a publisher from publishing what he wants, when he wants, un-edited. The outbursts can be intemperate and foolish, but they are more interesting and provocative because of it. Restaurant diners shake their heads in astonishment, but it causes them to discuss and re-read the editorial, then send a link.
"Hey, check out what's going on at the Tribune."
[Note that an earlier version of this story spelled the publisher’s name incorrectly, as Salsow, i.e. as it had been misspelled in the newspaper itself. Look at the image at the top.]
6 comments:
I consider Saslow's "editorial" neither brave nor wise. There are holes in his arguments big enough to drive a rain-forest excavator through. Quoting Milton Friedman...really? Why didn't he just use Ayn Rand. And those cherry picked failing social democracies...are the words "sanctions," "embargoes" or "monopolies" not found in his lexicon? But I do understand the emotion behind Salsow's piece. He is evidently a "self-made man," someone who had to work hard to get where he is... made the "right" connections along the way. The system has worked for him. (Of course, I could be wrong, since 80% if all wealth in this country is inherited...bio information on Saslow markedly absent on the web). Evidently Saslow has had a change of heart from his earlier thinking as worded in this June 6, 2017 article by Greg Stiles in the Mail Tribune, announcing Saslow's takeover of the paper: "We don't have to say we're going in one direction," he said. "We're not left, we're not right, we are a variety of different things to mirror the growth that is in this area. Whatever we do, we want to cover thoroughly and credibly. You want to read it, you want to see it, you want to hear it." Looks like someone took a right turn to me...
Andy Seles
The NYT it ain't.
It's quite a stretch to link Nazis to Social Security.
"Thanks for sharing"...
The Muddy Tributary has been on a downhill slide since "Rosebud Media took it over. I cancelled last year as much over my disagreements with Sadlow as over the continuing inability to deliver my paper on time more than 50 Percent of the time.
Be very afraid. There’s reds under the bed.
Perhaps these antics are just the start of his bid to become president someday. It worked for the last guy.
The thing I find odd about the Mail Tribune is that most of its news focus is a soft-hearted take on soft social issues. Avoids local government almost altogether. Chimes in reflexively to the left on state or national issues. I don't find it courageous or useful. Including Saslow on the other end.
Post a Comment