Good grief. It isn't all that often that I feel the need to fire off a letter to a publication. Up until now, I've never done it. Today, I wrote a citizen protest to the Fort Collins Coloradoan.
Here are the motivation-related reasons I wrote the letter:
- Man arrested for bias-motivated assault (9 News website)
- Police arrest assault suspect (Fort Collins Coloradoan)
I'd really like you to read at least one of those articles before moving on to my shaking-fists-in-the-air letter to the editor.
Okay. Moving on.
Here is what I wrote to the editor of the Fort Collins Coloradoan:
“Bias-motivated assault” is a whitewash of political correctness
I was motivated with bias-related curiosity to read the article that was print-related in your paper and online. I doubt it would have been possible for you to find a less descriptive euphemism to describe this malicious crime. Perhaps describing it as a “jolly good romp where two fellows boxed the ears of another gentleman” may have substituted just as well.
Perhaps the writer and editors are trying to avoid having
Call it what it was: a hate crime. A racially-motivated hate crime. It happens everywhere, and
Sincerely,
Sarah Porter
+++++++++++++++++++++
Update: I just received this letter back from the fellow that reposted the article on 9News. I think I will follow his advice.










7 beautiful people muttered something back:
This word-related comment is in regard to your text-containing post of letters and punctuation. It's nice to see that the finest journalistic education has enabled writers to produce euphemisms so devoid of meaning that they have left a headline comical in its political-correctness. Which bias were they referring to? Is it a Patriots vs. Giants problem? Maybe car riders vs. bicyclists? McDonalds vs. Burger King? I would write more, but I must return to my dish-related activity in the water-containing-vessel of the food-related room.
You go, girl! Do let us know if your letter makes publication. Because damn it if it doesn't.
How lame of them to pass the buck. I love that they print it, but are not responsible. That's surely the leadership we want our media to take.
I agree with 'e'. The paper had a choice. they could have called it what it was, but they chose not o rock the boat. Apparently journalistic integrity and intestinal fortitude are just words in the dictionary to them.
It's probably all related to the obscure way some Congress person worded the law. And, of course, if anyone dared change the wording prescribed by said law they would be in serious need of CYA rehabilitation. I was just talking to my daughter earlier about all the pc double-talk that seems so prevalent these days. I think it is past time for a bit of common sense and sensibility to take over in these United States.
Phil "said it best by saying nothing at all" - Exactly.
Catherine - Haha. Thanks. I don't subscribe to that paper, so I'm not sure if it was published. I haven't seen it online today.
e - That's exactly what I was thinking. Is it required of news stations to only repeat word for word a press release from the police or from another journalistic source? Me thinks no.
LceeL - Yup. I find it crazy that two journalistic outlets found it necessary to use the same terminology that basically means nothing. Way to sweep it under the rug, Colorado.
Eve - Yeah. I don't know what the law says about this particular matter, but I do know about free speech, especially in the media. My guess is that the town or certain people were trying to avoid the same kind of BIG story similar situations became in Boulder not so long ago.
Post a Comment