It is comforting to live in a nation where citizens can criticize the government in newspaper articles without fear.
Our cherished freedom of speech, lauded by President Bush before Congress Thursday night, has been challenged by many who condemn the Star Tribune for publishing Howard Rosenberg’s article from the Los Angeles Times labeled “analysis.”
Its Sept. 14 headline said, “On camera, Bush needs to display more leadership.”
Rosenberg wrote, “Bush has seemed almost boyish at times — a kid wishing he were somewhere else — when instead a national anchorman was needed to speak believably with confidence about the state of the union during one of its darkest hours.”
Repeatedly, callers and e-mail messages invoked patriotism in denunciation of the newspaper and Rosenberg.
Typical was Linn Weeks’ e-mail:
“Shame on Mr. Rosenberg for writing it and more than that, shame on you for printing it! I am embarrassed to think an [article] like this could come out in our paper at a time when this country should be supporting our elected officials and NOT criticizing them.
“We need all the ‘flag waving’ support this nation can muster at this time.”
Rosenberg told me he received about 900 e-mail complaints, many of them death threats “equating me with the terrorists.”
He said he didn’t regret writing the column, but added, “I should have waited one day.”
Rosenberg was not alone in his critique. A New York Times editorial Wednesday said, “The president appeared tentative in his first appearances after the attack, and then overly bellicose on Monday when he made his ‘wanted: dead or alive’ remarks at the Pentagon.”
Readers were not assuaged by last Sunday’s analysis in the A section of Bush’s crisis-management by R.W. Apple Jr. of the New York Times.
It began, “With the eyes of a nervous nation fixed upon him, George W. Bush began coming of age as president this weekend.”
Callers have continued to denounce Rosenberg’s article, many arguing it was unpatriotic.
Comment: Terrorism’s goal is to destroy America and its values, one of which is freedom of expression. Those who insist our leaders be insulated from criticism are advocating silencing those who disagree. That’s a subtle form of terrorism.
Suspect descriptions
William Lundquist, Merrill Cole and Brian Maginnis asked why no description was published of the two suspects in the brutal beating of a couple in New Brighton Sept. 5.
The suspects were captured in Yellowstone National Park Sept. 7.
A Sept. 6 story said, “Police traveled door-to-door showing residents photo lineups of men fitting the description of the assailants who had lived in the area….”
The readers interpreted that to indicate police had a good description of the suspects.
However, the police descriptions were vague and did not meet the newspaper’s criteria for publishing.
They were:
- “Suspect #1: White male, approximately 5 ft. 9 inches tall, with dark hair and wearing a red Wisconsin shirt.
- “Suspect #2: White male, short in height, with stocky build and light-colored hair.”
The next day police added to the description that both were about 20 years old.
Comment: The callers understandably interpreted the story to say that the police had photos of men fitting the description of the assailants.
Elicit, not illicit
The message from Irv Steinfeldt was not elicited. He spotted an Aug. 29 Associated Press story:
“Comparisons to [Flip] Wilson, the first successful black host of a TV variety show, illicit a positive response….”
Anti-sprawl sprawl
David Hakenson pointed out “how readers can become cynical about the paper’s alleged pro-environmental anti-sprawl tilt.”
He listed three Sept. 9 articles: Mary Abbe’s review of artist Tom Maakestad’s rural landscapes, Karin Winegar’s Opinion page article and Darlene Pfister’s Metro/State cover story.
“Seems like overkill to me,” he observed.
Comment: Also, lack of newsroom coordination.
Brandt’s point
Reporter Steve Brandt says he didn’t explain the method of selecting applicants for Neighborhood Revitalization Program loans in a Aug. 29 article because that wasn’t the point at issue.
I said the story failed to explain that point in discussing Minneapolis City Council Member Joe Biernat’s application.
