• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

Gutless rants hurt journalism

S

squeaky

New member
I was just reading the online version of the Peoria Journal Star, and the top headline on their front page is "Gutless rants hurt journalism", by Phil Luciano.

http://pjstar.com/news/index.shtml

http://pjstar.com/stories/032807/PHI_BCP5IKCV.033.php

I know this doesn't apply directly to sports, this time, although Luciano's reasoning mirrors Kirk Wessler's column a couple years ago, and many other columns I have read recently, about people posting opinions on the internet.
So, another "rant" by a columnist ripping anyone else with an opinion. Apparently these demigods think they are the only ones who should be allowed to spew their opinions. And I am surprised to see that they think people who have unpopular or even vile opinions is something new! Sorry to inform you, Phil, but there have been people with opinions you and I don't like and don't agree with for thousands of years. Deal with it!

Phil especially rips the few instances he cites where people display bigotry in their opinions. He says, "this is still a newspaper. Its job is to deliver the news in a fair and respectful manner."
As if some of Phil's past columns haven't been bigoted or insulting to factions of the community? Phil, apparently you don't remember referring to some of the fine people of Peoria as hicks and rubes?
And the sports editor's referring to a 17 year old basketball player as a "steaming pile of two guard"? Do you call that fair and respectful?
Phil says-"If a story runs in the Journal Star, it isn't just innuendo; it's the best effort the paper can make at pinpointing the truth."
Is that why the sports editor has to keep apologizing and retracting his opinions? What a joke. These jokers have been cramming their biases and skewed opinions down our throats for decades, and now that the internet gives us lowly public the forum to air our opinions it threatens the life out of people like Phil Luciano, Kirk Wessler, and others with their elite power.

Luciano says- "If this is the way the media are heading - all ideas hold equal weight - then true journalism is an endangered species."
What an incredibly elitist and arrogant mindset. As if the handful of people who write for newspapers are the only ones capable of reporting news and having opinions. Unbelieveable! If journalism is endangered, it's because all the truly intelligent and enlightened people in our society go into other fields of work, leaving people like Luciano to write for the PJ Star. Tell us, Phil, were you at the top of your class in high school? Did you graduate Summa Cum Laude with multiple degrees from college? What are your qualifications for such a superioity complex?

Phil also says-"Yet inevitably, you find a turd in the punch bowl - comments so vile it kills my appreciation for reader discourse."
Just check the top of the PJS home page to see today's turd.
 
The newspapers in America tout themselves as the GREAT BASTION of FREE SPEECH, and purport to support freedom of speech for themselves and everyone........

UNLESS........unless you happen to say something that they or their editorial staff don't agree with.
Then you are no longer covered under the umbrella of free speech.
They will not allow your opinion in the paper, they will ridicule you, they will do their best to drown out your voice, as Phil Luciano does here.

Trust me, I don't support bigotry or racism, but these guys are referring to just about any opinion that they find "gutless", "lack of civility", "sniping, libelous, ridiculous, cruel", or as coming from "jerks" or Kooks".
Phil even refer's to some of the public who leave comments as "a turd in the punch bowl".

??--maybe some of these journalist types should get used to the idea that e mails, blogs, message boards, etc. are pretty much here to stay, and stop trying to bully those who have opinions that differ from yours.
 
There was once a time that the dailies were the only way for people to hear the educated opinions and the news.
Then came radio, then TV, then the internet.
More and more the newspaper journalists are moaning their loss of control of the media.
This is just another example. They are like little Saddams who just don't get it, that the people have spoken!
The people have said they want other options, TV news, the internet, etc.
No wonder papers are merging, folding, and being sold.
They are nearing dinosaur status as always a day or two behind, and less than relevant.
Cry all you want, but the people have spoken.
 
Just like journalists, there always seems to be at least one turd in the punchbowl, look at the slander job Bill Liesse done to Bruce Weber a few weeks ago, now thats a turd in a punch bowl.....
 
They are like little Saddams who just don't get it

all the truly intelligent and enlightened people in our society go into other fields of work, leaving people like Luciano to write for the PJ Star
Click to expand...

Very good description. These guys are ridiculous.

I know I am generalizing here as there are some very bright and intelligent people in journalism, but when I was in college (Bradley), some of the people who couldn't cut it in Liberal Arts & Sciences fields, and other more difficult curriculi, gravitated to journalism. Now these are the same people that act so intellectually superior. Give me a break!
 
BobbyG said:
Very good description. These guys are ridiculous.

I know I am generalizing here as there are some very bright and intelligent people in journalism, but when I was in college (Bradley), some of the people who couldn't cut it in Liberal Arts & Sciences fields, and other more difficult curriculi, gravitated to journalism. Now these are the same people that act so intellectually superior. Give me a break!
Click to expand...

I think it makes them mad that people other than journalists are actually allowed to publicly voice their opinions without being edited in the letters to the editor section.
 
BobbyG said:
Very good description. These guys are ridiculous.

I know I am generalizing here as there are some very bright and intelligent people in journalism, but when I was in college (Bradley), some of the people who couldn't cut it in Liberal Arts & Sciences fields, and other more difficult curriculi, gravitated to journalism. Now these are the same people that act so intellectually superior. Give me a break!
Click to expand...

Give ME a break. Its unfair to group all journalists together. There are some out there that do an excellent job of accurate, fair, unbiased reporting.

It also smacks of ignorance to assume that journalism students couldn't hack it in the "more difficult curriculi". Maybe, just maybe, they chose that career path because it was what they wanted to do with their life.

Now who is acting "intellectually superior".

Black Pot: "Hello Kettle"
Kettle: "Hello Pot"
Black Pot: "Guess what Kettle...you're black"
 
You guys are missing the entire point of the column. Luciano isn't bashing people for giving their opinion. He's bashing them for being hateful, slanderous and anonymous in doing it. That was clearly pointed out in the first few paragraphs. If they did it using their actual name, which he does every time he writes an article, he says he wouldn't have a problem with it.

GObravesGO: thank you for pointing out what you said. I'm a journalism student at Bradley, and I hate it when people say I'm a journalism major because it's an easy curriculum or I'm too dumb to do anything else. Sure, not all writers are the brightest people in the world or the best students (Luciano would be one of the first to admit that), but that doesn't make us a bunch of morons. I do what I do because I love sports and I love to write. So I figured, hey, why not do something that has both? Why else would I choose a profession that has crappy pay and a ridiculously competitive job field? Writers are in this business because they want to inform people. Could I have chosen to be a teacher or something else with my life? Sure, but this is what I love to do. I'm sorry if that bothers some of you.

I think it makes them mad that people other than journalists are actually allowed to publicly voice their opinions without being edited in the letters to the editor section.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you got that idea. Letters to the editor are edited for nothing but grammar and content, not the person's opinions.

And as for Bill Liesse, there's no excuse for what he did. But at least he put his name by what he wrote, unlike the people who post on here or any other Internet message board. And when he realized he made a mistake, he apologized for it. Let it go.
 
But scouter, just who is it that has an internet site which allows AND EVEN ENCOURAGES AND SOLICITS anonymous responsed to the articles and columns, and just who is it that sponsors, runs, and edits the most prolific message boards in Central Illinois, all of which is pretty anonymous and "unsigned".

It is the Peoria Journal Star, so just who is Phil Luciano actually angry at?
The people who simply hold and express constitutionally protected opinions?
Or the route by which they are expressed, which is provided by the profession that he represents?

BTW--
I have read the main editorial in the Journal Star and numerous other newspapers for 50 years, and NONE of them are signed or give any inkling who it is that's writing them.
I suppose it can be attributed to the "editorial staff" in general...but how can you be so hypocritical to demand letter writers use their names with their letters, when the PJStar editorial staff DO NOT and HAVE NOT EVER followed the same requirements?

AND they sure don't print every letter, they select the ones to print using their own personally chosen criteria. Is that not a one sided selective editing?
Luciano used his own editorial priviledge to show the baddest of the bad ones he got and tried to lump everyone else with the bad ones.

Here are just a few representative examples from today's paper:
http://pjstar.com/stories/032807/EDI_BCMP0SA8.058.php
http://pjstar.com/stories/032807/EDI_BCOIL0CH.059.php
http://pjstar.com/stories/032507/EDI_BCNUKMFO.058.php


Look at this:
scroll to the bottom and see that after Luciano's column, it says:
"Leave a Comment"

No place does it say you have to reveal your identity.

http://pjstar.com/stories/032807/PHI_BCP5IKCV.033.php

Even the "Guidelines for posting comments" never says to identify yourself.
http://pjstar.com/services/storycomments.shtml

In fact-- of the 11 comments left on today's Phil Luciano article (in which he is esentially shaming responders into signing their comments), ALL ELEVEN are anonymous, not one person says his name, and yet all of them are polite and civil!

Does this surprise anyone.
 
Scouter said:
I'm not sure where you got that idea. Letters to the editor are edited for nothing but grammar and content, not the person's opinions.

And as for Bill Liesse, there's no excuse for what he did. But at least he put his name by what he wrote, unlike the people who post on here or any other Internet message board. And when he realized he made a mistake, he apologized for it. Let it go.
Click to expand...

Yes thats true but they decide what we see and what we don't see. On message boards they have no control over this except for their own PJS board which is moderated by a biased ISU fan.
 
Baloney...
those are just three names on the editorial staff.

Want to know who writes all the anonymous comments?
Get a Peoria phone book.

The editorial staff should be held to the same criteria, right?
They should sign their editorials.
 
Not disagreeing with you T.

Just thought I'd put it out there.

Also found this...from the pjstar website:

"Why don?t editorials carry bylines? Because although they are written individually, their content is directed by committee. The editorial is not the writer?s opinion but the newspaper?s, as determined by the editorial board. There are times when the writer may not agree with every word of an editorial he writes, though he almost certainly supports its general thrust. Finally, every editorial is subject to editing. The jousting may produce an end product considerably different from the original."

http://pjstar.com/opinion/ssections/primer/ourview.shtml
 
There is at least one quality about a person that's more gutless than "anonymity", and that's the arrogance to believe your opinion is always right so you never have any worry how many lives you ruin when you publish it, and that you have the constitutionally protected right to trumpet your opinion, and that the common people do NOT.
Most newspaper people think freedom of the press trumps freedom of speech.

Anyone recall the time (1995) a certain journalist published the home phone number of a certain Judge who chaired the Illinois Supreme Court that the MAJORITY decided a case, that the newspaperman believed was unfair?
He turned that good man's life into a nightmare for the next decade. In the end, the writer and the newspaper got sued by one of the plaintiffs in the case, but he never conceded that what he did was irresponsible and unethical, because he was a journalist and it was his right.
 
I'm with you...but that example is an Op-Ed peice meaning Opposite the Editorial page. They are just that "guest" writers.

I personally agree with you - but I can see where Luciano and Scouter are coming from. I was just providing the Journal Stars' rationale for why THEY don't include bylines.
 
In the end, let all the opinions be heard and let them stand for themselves, even the "turd" ones (as long as the language doesn't violate standards).
That's what makes America great. If the newspapers try to tell the people to stop expressing those unpopular opinions, then where will it end?.....not to mention it just isn't going to happen. There will always be people with opposing opinions.
you will not be able to eradicate them.
 
Letters to the editor are edited for nothing but grammar and content, not the person's opinions.

And as for Bill Liesse, there's no excuse for what he did. But at least he put his name by what he wrote, unlike the people who post on here or any other Internet message board. And when he realized he made a mistake, he apologized for it. Let it go.
Click to expand...

As was stated, the letters to the editor are carefully selected. Most letters any newspaper receives never get published. So the newspaper editorial staff, in a way, can select whichever letter they want to show the viewpoints they prefer, or the "intolerances" they want to "expose", just as Phil Luciano did today by selecting only the worst of the worst comments from letters and emails he has received.

And if we should "let it go" when columnists make fools of themselves, then why isn't that advice good for Luciano and the PJS editors? I am sure there isn't a single person alive who is surprised to hear that some fringe people have bigoted opinions. Does Luciano think we should shut down the internet to keep such people from posting their views? He is the one who should "get over it".

By the way, for many years I and many people have been offended by some of what is on TV and in movies that I believe has a negative effect on our youth. The liberals in the media have always told us to shut up, and if we don't like somethiung, "turn it off". "That's what the off button is for".

Again, why isn't that advice good enough for the very people who use it to support the liberal agenda?
The opinions expressed on the internet aren't forced on anyone, you have to go looking to find them. It's not like it's delivered to my porch every day along with the daily news like Luciano's opinions are.
 
As a Bradley journalism grad who actually was getting a 4.0 in computer science before I realized I couldn't complete both majors in four years and that I preferred writing articles to writing code, I thank you for impugning the intelligence of an entire major. Yes there was the old fail at engineering, go to business, fail at business, go to com track, but most of those I knew gravitated toward other com majors, and those who were in journalism tended to be on the fringes of the department.

As for the initial topic, it's a credability issue. There's a difference between message boards like this and when papers begin to do something like to pull anonymous reader comments and publish them alongside the story. If I write an article and screw up the facts, there are repercussions. I get yelled at by my sources, I get yelled at by readers and I get yelled at by my boss (or, if the mistake is bad enough, possibly fired). People respect me less, are less likely to agree to be interviewed by me. But if someone anonymously posts malicious and false rumor and it makes it into the paper next to my article, it is almost as though the paper is lending it the same credibility.

You can argue that sometimes newspapers don't do a great job (and yes, some columnists behave like talk radio hosts and write in such a way as to inflame rather than inform), but I believe there is a place and a need for good, objective journalism, but how can newspapers claim to be the ones who separate facts from rumor and innuendo when they are publishing them from people they don't know in the name of being more Web-friendly.

I'm sorry this is my first post. I've been meaning to register for a while, but I guess sometimes you have to get angry first. I'm not anti-message board. I love reading this one, valleytalk and several others. I just also care about what I do and believe there is a place for it.

Oh, and while many articles on the editorial pages include the author's name, I don't know if I've ever seen an official newspaper editorial that does. Almost all of them have the same list of editorial board members, be it the Scout or the paper I work for now (not the PJStar, in case you were assuming that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top