Editors and Codependency

Everybody seeks approval, it's natural. Others need it more often than not. Some really need to hear it.

What the Advocate doesn't want to hear are opinions that differ, case in point, Mr. Matt Ocker, wrote an editorial to the Advocate last week, in reply, they refused to print it.  But soon a story is going to break.  They ask for an opinion, then they delete it, deny it, or censor it

On one hand the Advocate is holding out an olive branch, whispering in your ear, ever so caring and nice. In their other hand they're holding the delete dagger, and man do they wield it. Editorial citizen slashing is another side of this double edge blade.

Case in point, here's another deleted post, I'm sitting on 12 more, and censoring truth contradicts their mission statement.

Cobler commented they treaded lightly on a sad incident concerning the death of a local citizen, and he still is writing one-sided balderdash, over and over asking what should be done in the pursuit of justifying poor journalism.  

All these points are very valid, Treading lightly you say -- I don't feel the Advocate did that in the recent incident when they reported the manner in which the deceased died. And honestly I'm a little reluctant to even comment on this because in fairness to the family, had the Advocate just reported in a very simple fashion, this blog would not even be here.

It pains me a great deal to think the deceased's children and family members might be reading these comments, and that the man should be honored for his accomplishments, rather than being the reason the Advocate had to take a stance and review how reporting is done on such delicate issues.

I feel anyone with a Master's degree in journalism would already know the delicacy of dealing with a person's feeling in such matters.

And that a public forum is not necessary to give the powers that be in the Advocate a reason to question longstanding journalistic principles.

It reminds me of the Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) paradigm and to do what's already been done and not ask questions to answers many of us already know.

If it were my choice, I would recommend the Advocate scotch all comments relating to this incident from their website so the kids or family members don't inadvertently stumble across this now, or in the future.

Not a single iota of difference relates to readers what happens behind closed doors at the Advocate's ethic meeting, because they will do what they will do. And that's proven.

I just pray the ethic's committee does what is right and to respect all members in the community through all facets of life and how it is reported, and how words effect the day to day lives of those in this community as they go about their business without having to read one's laundry.

I hope this comment is shared with all the board members, and people take heart how fortunate we are, and for the Advocate to quit asking us what they should do.

And do what is right.

January 12, 2012 at 8:22 p.m. 

Deleted minutes later.

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Sir Winston Churchill, Speech in November 1942