Peter Schmitz says: > Peter responds: Inane threads on this list <snip> do not justify inane, mean-spirited > and racist stories that appear in the Strib.
I was only referring to Wizard's notion that the Strib had overplayed this story, and make the point that interesting things rank high in public attention, not just important things. Of course, no one was trying to justify racism. > Peter responds: It's not necessary for me to know Rochelle personally to > judge her work. That's like saying I have to get to know George W. as a > person before I can opine on how he's running this country. Another point I *didn't* make. My point was - since people think they can read a reporter's "spirit" - is that anyone who actually knows her knows differently. > Going by the content and quality of Ms. Olson's articles for the past two > years, I must say I have reservations regarding her ethics as well as the > agenda of her employers. The only examples Peter has cited so far are the placement of a picture on DFL primary day (which he admits might not be the reporter's doing), a reference to Rybak's family in a 2001 campaign piece (are we sure Rochelle wrote that one?), and the mention of the Biernat case in this story. Sorry, that's weak evidence for the serious charge that Rochelle Olson is ethically compromised. She's the one I'm defending here. > So David, say what you will, but if Rochelle Olson has as much integrity > and grit as you claim, then maybe she'll do an article about Barrett Lane > or Lisa Goodman should either of them get stopped by the police for a > traffic violation. But they haven't (unless you know something the rest of us don't)! Johnson Lee did. A Councilmember and cop getting into it is news. You can't claim bias if your counter-examples have never happened. (And yes, it's quite possible that the police will more likely get into it with a black councilmember. But that is not the newspaper's fault, and the Strib mentioned racial selective enforcement in this story *prominently.*) > Some may > conceal or disguise their biases and agendas better than others, but > they're present nevertheless. Anyone who tells you differently is not > being truthful. No one is... but so what? Saying people have biases does not give everyone a free pass in alleging ethical compromise. Bottom line: you still have to have the evidence, and at this point in the discussion, my opinion is such evidence is weak. David Brauer King Field TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
