Considering the Source
In light of Monday’s Ethics in Online Journalism forum, two different headlines on the same topic caught my eye today. Not a local topic, but treatment by two local Publishers of Stuff Online.
MinneaPolitics: “Racist, Authoritarian Buckley Dead”
Minnesota Monitor: “Conservative stalwart Buckley dead at 82″
For further reference, we have About pages.
Let the illusion of objectivity fall by the wayside. As truth seekers we cannot rely on them to give us “both sides of the story” when in reality, there are endless facets to any one series of events.
As a coalition of long-time bloggers, freelance writers, and professional journalists our aim is to enhance and expand the political dialogue in Minnesota. By combining the immediacy of blogging with time-honored journalistic inquiry, Minnesota Monitor intends to provide a platform for overlooked stories, policy and campaign analysis, and unique local perspectives on the important issues of the day.
Both with information. Both with merit.
Which one interests you more? Why?
Wow … that first headline’s a little uncalled for. Was he a racist? He did encourage that sort of thing in his magazine early on. And it was pretty recently he advocated tatooing AIDS patients’ backsides in the NYTimes. Authoritarian? He did encourage some authoritarian regimes that caused a lot of suffering.
But, as a liberal living in a world of Rushs and Coulters, he was very, very intelligent and respectful. His use of language astonished everyone. He was great in debates — and even criticized Big Gov Bush Republicanism towards the end of his life.
If Gore Vidal died tomorrow and had expressed sympathies toward Stalin, it would be a mistake to focus only on that in a post about his death — just as it’s a mistake to call Buckley a racist the day he dies. Liberal historian Rick Perlstein gave a nice remembrance here.