Jim Mork asks: > "In the morning, there might be 10 homeless people sleeping under the trees. > In the afternoon, between 20 and 30 mostly black homeless and their friends > or family occupy the Island as a place to relax, take in the view and enjoy > the company of those who feel their pain." (At Home In The Island, Skyway > News) > > So explain what the point of this paragraph is.
To add context about some positives about where they are. This paragraph came after several in which we discuss negative conditions. It's the upside (based on their testimony, reflected later in the piece or paraphrased) amid many downbeat notes. > We've already learned that > proximity to several charities offsets the noise level. Now, we learn that > homeless people loiter here to "relax" and "take in the view". To me that > says "These people are adapting to this effortless and lazy way of life". > I've been without useful activity. The time DRAGS by when that is what you > have ahead. It has NOTHING to do with "relaxation". No one should be > employed as a wordsmith who can't anticipate how the audience (busy, > employed downtowners) would react to words. But, then, maybe the author > WANTS that reaction? I wouldn't. Jim, I can't read readers' minds. That's slippery business. I think the fuller picture of the living conditions presented throughout the story does not support your one-sided conclusion. Some people on the Island feel they'll never leave - call it adaptation, we don't. Others want to get the hell out. Some bemoan their circumstances; others become leaders and fight to maintain their self-respect. It's a complex scene that doesn't lead easily to one-sided simplistic conclusions. > "He claims he can make up to $200-$300 a night telling people on the street > that he needs $4.50 to get his car out of a parking ramp. He says the > technique usually works, yielding anywhere from a quarter to $20 from each > person who responds.' > > Since editing is a practice of shortening for greater meaning, why was THIS > left in? Is it really more a reflection of what a homeless person is about > than some other story that could have been put in? It was one of many personal stories. Why shouldn't it be in there? Not negative enough? Too negative? Is it verboten to point out that some people claim to make money and fritter it away on drugs? > "Other Islanders claim they don't use drugs, yet their bloodshot eyes - and > the smells - suggest a different story." > > I think the editor fell down here, too. These are liars and druggies, > folks, don't give them ANY understanding! Umm, Jim - are you suggesting there are no liars and druggies out there? Reporters get to write what they see, and this was based on strong physical evidence. Also, there are scenes of probable drug dealing (the folks in fancy cars) remarked upon later. The notion that these people don't deserve understanding isn't supported by the context and humanity of the collective observations in the piece. I could just as easily select 4-5 quotes and have others paint me as a bleeding heart! > "I know Mary Jo's heart is in the right place, but she seems to be the > ultimate enabler," Walseth says. > > Sorry, but THIS quote is DISGUSTING. No editor should have allowed it. Why not? Not politically correct? Doesn't conform to your opinion? Mary Jo is above judgment or criticism? It's one person's opinion - the opinion of a nearby businessperson who often finds the homeless uninvited in his workspace. He has first-hand experience with the scene. As an editor, I don't think about whether I agree or disagree with a quote, but whether it's a valid perspective among many. Certainly, reasonable people can conclude that because the homeless people on the Island live there with sustenance from Mary Jo's Sharing and Caring Hands (which Islanders explain in the story), she is enabling them. (It's interesting to be criticized by some for painting too rosy a picture of the Island situation, and others who say it's too mean.) > Well, David, I've read this masterpiece. What am I supposed to take away? Readers can take away whatever they choose to - it's up to them of course. Objectively, it's a portrait of three blocks of Minneapolis with unique facets - which obviously inspire strong emotions. David Brauer Editor, Skyway News and Southwest Journal 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
