A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From GraphicsGuy's workspace   

"ignoring the will of the voters"

Our illustrious 'newspaper' (and I use the term 'newspaper' quite loosely) 'The Blah', deemed it necessary to show it's 2 sided face yet again in an editorial called "No smoking exemptions"

Their stance is that 'the voters have spoken' and to "ignore the will of the voters, we have three words of advice: Forget about it.

Their position on "ignoring the will of the voters" would be funny if it wasn't so contradictory, and reflects poorly on the 'newspaper' and on the editors 2-faced position. Need I remind of the Blah's "ignoring the will of the voters" when they said back in June "COSI should give Toledo voters another chance to reconsider the folly of previous levy failures. Maybe a third time will be lucky." (Another 'chance'? Now there's a slap in the face to those that voted against the levy. Seems to infer the voters were 'without a clue', don'tcha think?)

Isn't this just what they warn against in their most recent editorial - that of "ignoring the will of the voters"?

Perhaps The Blah's editorialists are ignorant, uneductated, and terminally brain dead. Perhaps they go off half-cocked when they get an idea in their head and not delve into the specifics of a story. Perhaps all apply. What they have not researched, or more than likely, have chosen NOT to divulge, is the wording on the ballot that was presented to the voters for Issue 5, specifically stating "Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences... retail tobacco stores, outdoor patios, <u>private clubs,</u> and family-owned and operated places of business; {emphasis mine}

Had the wording have been different and NOT stated an exception for "private clubs" perhaps the outcome would have been different, and this is exactly why there are bills calling for these exemptions! The people spoke, but the rules got changed!

'The Blah': self proclaimed to be "One of America's Great Newspapers" Such a great building architecturally, but filled with people whose job is to report the news without bias. What a waste!

created by GraphicsGuy on Jul 27, 2008 at 09:45:28 am     Comments: 7

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

Journalists have always been cheerleaders and ambulance chasers and opinion fakers...
without bias of course.

Find me a person without bias and I'll show you a corpse.

posted by charlatan on Jul 27, 2008 at 10:10:39 am     #



That' why newspapers should consider abandoning the idea of "objectivity" and switch to opinion-based journalism in its stories along with the editorials and columns.

March 2006 Slate story How opinion journalism could change the face of the news :

Would it be the end of the world if American newspapers abandoned the cult of objectivity?

Objectivity - the faith professed by American journalism and by its critics - is less an ideal than a conceit. Journalists who claim to have developed no opinions about what they cover are either lying or deeply incurious and unreflective about the world around them. Nobody believes in objectivity, if that means neutrality on any question about which two people somewhere on the planet might disagree.

Most of the world's newspapers, in fact, already make no pretense of anything close to objectivity in the American sense. But readers of the good ones (such as the Guardian or Financial Times of London, to name the most obvious English-language examples) come away as well-informed as the readers of any "objective" American newspaper. Opinion journalism can be more honest than objective-style journalism because it doesn't have to hide its point of view. Writers freed of artificial objectivity can try to determine the whole truth about their subject and then tell it whole to the world.

Abandoning the pretense of objectivity does not mean abandoning the journalist's most important obligation, which is factual accuracy. In fact, the practice of opinion journalism brings additional ethical obligations. These can be summarized in two words: intellectual honesty.

posted by jr on Jul 27, 2008 at 10:47:56 am     #



Interesting article jr. I agree that this could be the next direction of newspapers. It's worked well for internet sites. I wouldn't have a problem with it either, since there are infinite opportunities for print media. Don't like the newspapers in your town? Start your own. It's much more feasible and realistic to do compared to radio, where the frequencies are "finite and scarce".

posted by pink_slip on Jul 27, 2008 at 01:46:30 pm     #



The Blocks/Blade has always been two-faced, as are most socialists. remember when the smoker ban was just in toledo? Then the rag screamed for HOME RULE. Then when it was amended, they screamed for a statewide smoker ban. Same way with guns-they screamed statewide ban before it was changed to allow guns in parks and city owned property-now they switch horses and cry "HOME RULE" again. They always want it according to their personal prejudices. As for the smoker ban, I told my son it was the only law in my entire life that was written AFTER it was passed.

posted by Darkseid on Jul 27, 2008 at 03:56:21 pm     #



Socialist? All I see in their weekly columns are anti-Obama stories. The Blade really needs to balance their weekly paid opinion authors. The ones they have now are idiots.
McCain isn't mentally fit to run a mens room.

posted by prime3end on Jul 27, 2008 at 04:19:58 pm     #



http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080724/NEWS24/807240350/-1/NEWS

Thursday's Blade article reporting on the meeting of the smoking ban foes was the closest the paper has come to acknowledging that the language on the ballot was defective. The story advised:

"Opponents of the smoking ban long have held that voters were confused by the ballot's wording, which led them to believe family-owned businesses and private clubs would be exempt."

I attended the meeting and NO ONE there opined that the wording was confusing. Rather the general consensus was that the wording of the ballot was intentionally deceptive. The Secretary of State should never have approved the ballot language, as it did not properly reflect the actual proposed law.

The law should be modified to conform to the ballot language.

posted by jimavolt on Jul 27, 2008 at 05:09:17 pm     #



"WELL SAID PRIME"

posted by blacjac687 on Jul 28, 2008 at 09:43:03 pm     #