Archive: Opinions

At first, I was surprised that in last week's editorial you referred to Fox News as a legitimate news organization, when it's common knowledge that it's a propaganda wing of the Republican party. Rather than reporting news, it presents opinion as though it is fact to such an extent that polls repeatedly show that Fox viewers are far more likely to be misinformed about established facts than are viewers of other, more respected, news sources.

As I understand it, the Obama administration was dismissing Fox as a legitimate news organization not because it presents stories in an unfavorable light, but simply because it does not present news.

And to put it in perspective, ignoring Fox's 3 million regular viewers out of a population of over 300 million is hardly ignoring half of America, as the editorial's headline stated. That comes to one percent, not fifty.

I was confused at first at the obvious silliness of the editorial until I realized that it may be one of those clever jokes you seem to enjoy playing on your readers in which you state one thing one week, and just the opposite at a later time, perhaps just to see if we're paying attention. Now we'll have to wait to see if sometime in the near future, we see an editorial condemning Fox and praising the Obama administration for treating it as the propaganda machine that it unquestionably is.

I wonder how many other readers have noticed these mischievous tricks you seem to play on your readers. I caught one recently when I noticed that you wrote an editorial about a Democratic caucus one way right after it happened, and then later wrote a completely opposite editorial about the exact same event.

For those readers who may have missed the joke, they should read your original editorial ("The American Way (it should be)" August 10, 2007), in which you described the caucus in glowing terms, as a shining example of democracy in action.

You were impressed by the Democrats present who asked hard questions and grilled the candidates on their philosophy. You described the event as "politics at its best." You found the process "fascinating and impressive." You said it was refreshing to see politics working in a way that "America is supposed to be about."

But then recently, you revealed the joke, and I think a lot of us were fooled. I know I was. I'm referring, of course, to the more recent editorial ("That's What I Call An Election " - October 16, 2009). Your readers will realize we've been had when they see how you described the exact same event in completely opposite terms.

In that editorial, you described a Democratic party in disarray, a party that trashed its candidate and attacked her personally because she was liked by Republicans.

I have to admit that you had me completely fooled. I really fell for it. Now that we've learned how much you seem to enjoy playing these little tricks on us, we'll have to pay closer attention to your editorials. Perhaps we should try to guess your true feelings and wait in anxious anticipation for you to reveal what you really think.

You've undoubtedly come up with a clever way to keep your readers guessing and paying closer attention to your editorials. While some of us may be annoyed to learn that we should take your editorials with a grain of salt, the rest of us thank you for making them a little more entertaining.


From: Ted Laux


Editor's note:  I was not claiming that half of Americans watch Fox News.  I was referring to the apparent approximately even split evidenced in recent elections between the two major parties, and how disappointing it is that Mr. Obama hasn't 'reached across the aisle' to the other half.  I agree I could have made that more clear.

In fairness, neither did our last president.  After working very closely with Texas Democrats as Governor, Mr. Bush seemed to be sucked into the partisan Washington mire when he became President.

I'm not going to argue Mr. Laux's characterization of Fox News because people who hate the network (and who typically don't watch it) can't be convinced otherwise.  As someone who watches most of the networks' news programs, my perception is that they are all slanted one way or another, but they all do report the news of the day.  They are also thick with anchors' comments and opinions when I think we would all prefer that they just report the news.

As I told Mr. Laux a few weeks ago in a private reply to his first letter skewing my editorials about the local Democratic caucus, I didn't see how mentioning trashing their candidate would do to help the situation two years ago.  It didn't seem to me that it would help Republicans, Democrats, the trashers, the trashee, or voters to make it an issue at the time, though it would probably have attracted more readers.  It probably makes me a lousy journalist, but I care about our community and put my opinions through that filter.  I only mentioned it in the recent editorial to underscore that I thought the Lansing Democrats have gotten their act together.  That doesn't alter the fact that it happened two years ago and didn't happen this year.

Both times I did find the process 'fascinating and impressive.'  There is nothing like a caucus to get down and dirty with our political system, and I mean that in a good way.  It's a microcosm of American politics.  I've brought both my children to witness it while covering it for the Star.  The discussions it sparked were memorable, and I think helpful in shaping their view of how the system works.  One of my children wants to go into politics, and I can't help but think that experience was part of what interested him.

On a personal note, I hate writing editorials.  I'll tell anyone who listens that just about anyone's opinion in town is more interesting than mine, and I don't know why anyone would bother reading them.  I only write them because when you edit a newspaper you have to write an editorial.  I guess I should be thrilled that Mr. Laux not only reads them but cares enough about what I have to say to write about them.

----
v5i46