Pointless editorials
As Kevin recently pointed out, if the Chronicle editors want to write simplistic and childish editorials, that's their business. However, one would think editorials offered up by the lone major newspaper in the fourth largest city in the U.S., would be substantive, and filled with logic, facts and a point. A clear idea and purpose. A reason for actually being an editorial.
Instead we are often subjected to editorials that rail against Bad Guys, often to the exclusion of a point. There are many Chronicle Bad Guys and it's not hard to figure out who they are. If you spot a non sequitur in an editorial, it's probably related to a Bad Guy. For example, last week the Chronicle ran an editorial that said the debates were good and campaign attacks are bad. Here's how it began:
As Americans learned four years ago, extremely close elections can deprive the winner of a mandate and leave lingering, corrosive doubt about the accuracy of the result. Debates are different. In three televised contests, Americans saw the candidates
project their strengths, personas and politics so ably it was hard to call a winner. Voters benefited from the close match.
That paragraph makes no sense, whatsoever. The Chronicle editors use the 2000 election to help explain why the debates were good for the voters, even though the editors couldn't pick a winner. Huh? What does that mean? Nothing, of course - it was just a gratuitous dig. The rest of the editorial goes on to discuss debates and campaign attacks. It's very odd and seems to have been written solely to shine a happy light on Senator Kerry and a dark light on President Bush. You see, the editors don't like that Senator Kerry's nuisance comment has been highlighted by the Bush camp. That's an attack, they say.
On to the second editorial that is searching vainly for an intelligent point. The editors aren't happy with President Bush's idea to cap noneconomic damages in medical malpractice suits. Since the editors have already made it VERY clear they don't like Texas' medical liability reform, I'm not sure why we are supposed to take this editorial seriously. But this one can't be passed up, we can guess, because it falls into the category of Bad Guys on so many levels: President Bush is Bad, that whole medical liability reform idea is Bad, and doctors are Bad, Bad, Bad. How do I know that? Well, check this out:
A review of the records of the State Board of Medical Examiners indicates that the problem is not so much high jury awards but the high number of drugged, deranged, impaired and incompetent physicians.
Wow! Deranged, drugged, impaired and incompetent. I need an extra Bad in there. Why, I'll bet some third world countries have better medical care than we do here in Texas. Any backup or citations to substantiate the copious amounts of hyperventilating (about poor people and injustice) in that editorial? None given. Guess we are supposed to take the editors' word that all this is true.
And then we get back to the problem - what is the point of these editorials? What are the editors bringing to the table that makes a reader say, "oh yes, this helps me understand the issue so much better." We know from the first editorial that the editors liked the debates and don't like campaign "attacks." But why is that an editorial? We get that twice a week from Cragg Hines. And the second editorial is so over the top that there's no room for debate, let alone intelligent debate.
We should expect more from Chronicle editorials - more substance, a clear and relevant point and less Bad Guys vs. Good Guys. If the editors can't do that, then they ought to consider using the Another Voice option more often, and borrow editorials from the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.
Posted by Anne Linehan @ 10/18/04 05:58 PM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.