The Constant Manure Spreader

Last week, Lileks directed us to Louisville Courier-Journal and their so called "Public Editor" column written by Pam Platt. The subject, her reaction to complaints her paper received regarding their selective, therapeutic editing of Ray Naggin's racially charged comments about restoring New Orleans as "Chocolate City". In summary, the editors willfully changed a direct quote, changed the reality of the situation, in order to make it less offensive. By any "news" standard, an unpardonable sin.

But never underestimate the power of an MSM internal watchdog to pardon the unpardonable. And in Platt's column I recognized the familiar style of the Star Tribune's so called "Reader Representative" Kate Parry. That style, outlined and excerpted for your pleasure:

1) Cop to a lesser charge:

It's not a monumental goof...

We dropped a plate here; we didn't smash the china cabinet.

Though the editor's personal sensibilities are to be admired, this time they did not serve the readers, or the newspaper, or journalism


2) Question and belittle the motives of the readers pointing out the error:

but it's [an error] that fuels suspicions some readers have about the news media in general and this newspaper in particular.

Also, his couching of the mayor's statements made the newspaper a target for familiar broadsides of bias

In trying to address potential sensitivities of some readers by excising the controversial remark, it could be taken by other readers -- and believe me, it was -- that the newspaper was trying to cover or protect this particular public official from his own articulations.

Finally, for those keeping score (and you know you're out there).


3) Mention how hard it is to work at a newspaper and characterize those who made the error as the real heroes of the story.

One more thing about copy editors: They are the mostly unsung heroes and heroines of daily journalism. They spin a lot of important plates in a very short amount of time, and on deadline to boot. Theirs is a difficult job and their efforts go mostly unnoticed when they do the job right, and keep all those plates spinning -- which is most of the time.

So they're not gatekeepers, they're plate spinners. That explains a lot. As does this candid photo of a recent Star Tribune editorial staff meeting.

The similarities between the Louisville and Minneapolis public editors may seem astounding. (And for Parry's latest text book carbon copy, see her column from yesterday.) But less so when you realize that both were plucked from the same insular, conformist journalistic culture that produces the reporters and editors they are supposed to be watch dogging. By the volume of praise they relentlessly heap on their colleagues, it is a culture they admire and very much wish to sustain. So we shouldn't be surprised that the work they produce is more on the level of damage control and public relations than as good faith advocates for the concerns of the readers.