Chron editorial page more erratic than ideal of late
The Chronicle editorial pages have seen an erratic few days.
We've pointed out a number of mishaps. Over at the Lone Star Times, Owen Courreges has pointed out a couple more.
Yesterday, the editorial page tackled Mayor White's proposed smoking ban. The newspaper ran two editorials -- a staff editorial contending that the proposal does not go far enough, and an op-ed from Elouise Adams Jones (owner of Ouisie's Table, which, seemingly miraculously, was able to ban smoking without the aid of an ordinance) arguing in favor of the ordinance. As Owen put it,
Instead of taking the opportunity to explore both sides of the issue, though, the Chronicle simply made both articles pro-ban. Needless to say, this smacks of bias and laziness.
He didn't mention the headline for the staff editorial, which included the following dubious assertion: "Tobacco smoke is a greater danger to air quality than industry."
So much for the Chronicle being a forum for debate, as recent radio ads assert.
Today, Owen takes issue with another staff editorial that condemns recent class-action lawsuit legislation on the grounds that libertarians, conservatives, and other followers of Ronald Reagan should be opposed to the legislation's alleged betrayal of "federalism." As Owen points out, it's a pretty weak argument against the legislation. Indeed, local attorney and blogger Tom Kirkendall provided additional insight in a post dated February 10:
A few exemptions remain that would allow primarily local controversies to remain in state court, such as cases in which at least two-thirds of the class members are from the state of the state court in which the class action is filed. A similar exemption exists for cases involving injuries that occurred primarily in one state.
The theory behind the legislation is to prevent class action plaintiffs' lawyers from forum shopping class actions in the state courts to find the most "damages friendly" venue for such cases. However, class action plaintiffs' lawyers have forum shopped class actions in federal courts for years, so the main impact of the legislation is simply to reduce the supply of available courts in which plaintiffs' lawyers can initiate a such a lawsuit.
The rest of the political debate regarding the bill is largely partisan drivel.
So, purely local matters can remain in state courts, but matters that extend across state lines shall now have federal jurisdiction. Thanks to Counselor Kirkendall for framing the matter so eloquently! We highly recommend that the Chronicle editorialists bookmark him.
As for his comment on partisan drivel -- that characterization seems to apply to the Chronicle editorial, which reached (and missed) with this not-so-subtle effort to call out Republicans as hypocrites.
Indeed, when further taking into account the Gibbons response to Tina Benkiser's letter this weekend, one sees an editorial page that seems to resemble a sloppy partisan blog more than an editorial page in an "ideal state."
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 02/21/05 03:05 PM | Houston Chronicle | Technorati | Sphere | Comments (2)
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
Trackback
Unfortunately, abusive spammers have forced us to disable incoming trackback pings. The Technorati link should list related posts. Feel free to drop us an email if you've linked a post and would like to let us know about it.
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-08, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.