Did the editors make me look less intelligent?

[tk2kewl]

Poll question: Did the editors make me look less intelligent?

What I wrote...

The news media fails to do its job

James Pinkerton must be living in an alternate universe from mine <"Big media's high-water mark", Opinion, June 2>. While I'll agree that Watergate was not worse than the Civil War, I can think of few things worse than a president who deliberately and criminally interferes with the democratic process of elections in this country.

I can also agree that the news media were probably more liberal in the '70s, but Pinkerton's assertion that the news media is now more "diverse" is patently absurd. Today the news media has been consolidated by corporate interests and we are bombarded with info-tainment rather than hard news. In the midst of a war that has lasted longer than our involvement in WWII, in the face of nearly 1700 American casualties and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and with evidence piling ever higher that the Bush administration fixed intelligence around its predetermined war policy <"Memo: Bush manipulated Iraq intel," News, May 9>, the news media feeds us around-the-clock coverage of the Michael Jackson trial, runaway-bride, and fingers in chili.

Truth is crucial to a healthy democracy, and the news media has an obligation to report the truth on issues critical to our future. However, todays news media is content to let talking heads from both sides spin the latest stories, while doing virtually no fact checking or investigation of their own, leaving the public with diametrically opposed "opinions" having little or no factual basis. Unfortunately, Watergate may have indeed been "big media's high-water mark", as the quality and value of reporting today pales in comparison.

What Newsday printed...

Deep Throat: beyond the call of duty

James P. Pinkerton must be living in an alternate universe from mine <"Big media's high-water mark," Opinion, June 2>. Although I'll agree that Watergate was not worse than the Civil War, I can think of few things worse than a president who deliberately and criminally interferes with the democratic process of elections.

I can also agree that the news media were probably more liberal in the '70s, but Pinkerton's assertion that the news media are now more "diverse" is patently absurd. Today the news media have been consolidated by corporate interests, and we are bombarded with infotainment, rather than hard news.

With evidence piling ever higher that the Bush administration fixed intelligence around its predetermined war policy <"Memo: Bush manipulated Iraq intel," News, May 9>, the news media feed us around- the-clock coverage of the Michael Jackson trial, a runaway-bride and fingers in chili.

Unfortunately, Watergate may indeed have been "big media's high-water mark," since the quality and value of reporting today pales in comparison.

On edit... added last two choices

[Sherwood]

1. It was watered down

They do this to everyone, though. One of my conservative co-workers once sent in a letter that was at least somewhat reasonable (he's no Repuke) and they make him sound like a Nazi.

[tk2kewl]

3. He sent it to Newsday, or some other paper?

I think it is important to give sane conservatives a voice.

[Fovea]

2. THey censored the most damning part.

But that's the job of a media whore. Fluff the daddy with the money.

[Inland]

4. They took ONE aspect of MSM, skipped another.

One, feeding us trivialities, two, refusing to look for actual facts y putting it in talking head format for a "fight".

The first they kept, the second they cut out.

Still a good letter, even as edited.

I would add that my single LTTE published was about three sentences long, in the exact format of every other letter.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. Your summary was in my book, your point, and they cut it out.

I had great respect for Newsday until recently. Now they too are in the hands of the facists.....

[Jack Rabbit]

6. I picked door number 2

Number 3 is a excuse, not a conclusion. They could put the adverstising somewhere else.

[Lerkfish]

7. hmmm..none of the above...

btw your poll questions don't leave any room for someone to disagree with you, which is awkward.

so, I will have to say I disagree. The only cuts I saw were on actual figures and a comparison to WWII, and a section on today's media. I felt what remained still told your story, with retaining the "big media's high water mark" sendoff, for example, in a more compact length without really sacrificing the core of your message.

there were also some style changes, but nothing I saw that compromised your content or made you look stupid. I think they weeded out some redundancy and streamlined it for a quicker read.

If anything, you should be proud that you got it printed, and your message not watered down by edits...IMHO.

[tk2kewl]

8. I guess I should add an "other"...

I just assumed there is always room for disagreement by posting. Thanks for the comment. I am happy that you feel it still comes off well.

[Lerkfish]

9. you're welcome...

I think you still got to target everyone you wanted to target, and you nailed them very well. I think it was a successful LTTE, IMHO. good job!