Last week (April 25 to be exact)
Armando had a diary on
How Journalists Refer to the "Nuclear Option" It struck a chord with me because I had been hearing this attributed to Democrats, which suggested that we, not the Republicans, were ready to "blow the place up". I'd heard it most on NPR, because that is what I listen to during my commute. So I sent an e-mail to NPR. I posted a copy in the thread:
here, if you are interested
I didn't hear anything back, but didn't really expect to. However, now I've learned that my message probably went in the circular file - thanks to some blogger, who will not be specifically identified below.
Jeffrey Dvorkin, NPR Ombudsman writes about
When Those Pesky Blogs Undermine NPR News.
He's actually talking about the DoD report on the Sgrena situation.
NPR's Vicky O'Hara reported on a Defense Department document, which exonerated U.S. military personnel. The document was highly edited (or "redacted" in Pentagon parlance), with about 20 percent of the original information removed.
Over the past weekend, NPR placed the document on its Web site.
But some NPR listeners and cyber-savvy bloggers (people who run personal Web sites on the Internet) soon discovered if they downloaded the document from npr.org and translated it into another format, the edited portions could be restored.
He goes on to say
The Blogs are Winning
As news organizations fight to regain their battered credibility and vanishing audiences, the blogs and the number of people who read them continue to grow. The blogs entertain, they provoke, and they are not constrained by journalistic standards of truth telling.
This is a challenge and a danger for journalism.
Can the MSM adopt any blog values to attract the younger audience? Or should we wait and see? Perhaps these younger people will outgrow these youthful informational indiscretions and come to their senses -- and back to media that can serve them best...
And then he links to Ken Rudin - NPR's Political Editor, who sort of "answered" my e-mail:
this way
Finally, congratulations to the dozens and dozens of free thinkers who wrote in, often using the exact same language, regarding a piece by NPR's David Welna on the oncoming collision in the Senate over the right of the minority to filibuster judicial nominations. David mentioned that Senate Democrats are calling Republican leader Bill Frist's threat to change the rules and curtail the filibuster the "nuclear option." Some Web logs took NPR to task by saying we were parroting the GOP line by attributing the quote to the Dems, when after all it was Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) who coined the phrase. All David was doing was saying that Democrats were calling it the "nuclear option," which they were. Welna didn't say that the Dems originated the term. He didn't get into its etymology. But suddenly, according to a bunch of blogs, NPR was "bamboozled," joining the vast right-wing conspiracy in attributing the phrase to the Democrats. And that was followed by dozens of e-mails, all from people "outraged" that NPR would stoop to such tactics. The least they could do is change some of the wording and make it look like they actually did some independent thinking before pressing the "send" button.
Well, I have feelings. I did do some independent thinking. So I sent another e-mail to tell him so. I also told him why the "etymology" mattered to me.
You recently wrote about the blitz of e-mails and letters about the origin of the term "nuclear option". In your comments you state: "The least they could do is change some of the wording and make it look like they actually did some independent thinking before pressing the "send" button." You are not alone, of course. The editors of my local paper, The Dallas Morning News, have reported similar experiences and have continued to educate readers that such "form letters" are easily recognized and will not be printed. I know other papers have said the same as well.
However, an e-mail from me was in that blizzard. 100% original - my own thoughts, in my own words. Written because it mattered to me, and not because some blog flipped a 'send mail switch'. In it I address an aspect that you also commented on.
"All David was doing was saying that Democrats were calling it the "nuclear option," which they were. Welna didn't say that the Dems originated the term. He didn't get into its etymology. "
It seems you find the origin of the term of little significance. I disagree. There are connotations that matter. When someone says something is "so called" there is a suggestion that it really isn't what it is being called. When it is stated that this is what Democrats call the nuclear option it suggests that they may be blowing it out of proportion for their own partisan ends. Here is what I wrote in my original e-mail:
To my mind the source of this term, and the concept of "blow(ing) the place up" is significant to the story. It says that those who propose to initiate the rules change fully recognize it as an extreme and drastic step.
So now I have had my say with NPR. Since this is my diary I also want to have my say with Kossacks and with activists - Democratic, Progressive, whatever. (Even Freepers and RedStaters, if they want to evolve - through either science or intelligent design)
If it matters enough to react it should matter enough to take time. Take time to think about what you believe. Take time to put it in your own words. Maybe someone else seems more eloquent, but only your unique voice and words express your unique thoughts and opinions.
MSM and the `nets are both sophisticated enough to recognize letter campaigns that are `push-button' reactions. It's waaay easy to click the radio button and zap out a form letter, or cut&paste the standard talking points in the comment section. Meanwhile, you have downgraded the importance of your thoughts and your message. You have become one of many identical "flakes" in an orchestrated blizzard. What you have also done is downgraded the importance of my thoughts and my message. My unique, one-of-a-kind snowflake is buried and lost. More importantly, the significance of the entire message is swept away on the breeze.
The push button cut and paste approach leads to "I think", and "me too", "me too", "me too", "me too" "me too", "me too", "me too", "me too", "me too". (and who cares at that point?)
On the other hand there is POWER when a mother in Seattle, a teen in Memphis, a senior citizen in Miami, a lesbian in Omaha, a businessman in Alamagordo, a paraplegic in Nome, a soldier in Afghanistan, a nurse in New York and a teacher in San Francisco all express themselves on the issue - from their own experience and in their own words.
Make your thoughts count and your voice heard.