[Peace-discuss] Letters to and from the News-Gazette

[C. G. Estabrook]

This exchange of notes is a bit long, but I thought that AWAREists might
find it amusing.  It will not come as a surprise as an example of how
debate is shaped in the media.

Last night (3/7) there was letter in the N-G that took issue with me by
name and contested some things that I had written in an earlier letter,
published in said newspaper. I wrote what I thought was a reasoned and
temperate reply (DOC 1, below).

N-G editor Jim Dey sent me a note (DOC 2), refusing to run my letter, and
I objected (DOC 3); his reply (DOC 4) and mine (DOC 5) follow.  That's
where it stands, at tea-break...


DOC 1, CGE TO EDITOR, NEWS GAZETTE (not published):
=================================================== 
Editor:

A letter-writer to the News-Gazette takes issue with a recent letter of
mine.  Amidst the simple abuse, he seems to make three points: (1) there
are no international laws violated by the US war in Iraq; (2) there are no
specific polls showing growing anti-war sentiment in the US; and (3) I did
not condemn Clinton's policies in Kosovo and Rwanda. All three are false.

	(1) The US invasion of Iraq so obviously violated the UN Charter
(notably Article 51) that the Secretary-General (installed by the US)
admitted that the war was illegal; the Nuremberg Judgment stated, ^ÓTo
initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the
supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that
it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole^Ô; and in its
conduct of the war and its torture policy, the US so clearly contravened
the Fourth Geneva Convention (designed, in 1949, to prevent what Germany
had done in WWII) and the US laws that implemented it, that our
now-Attorney General worried that members of the administration would face
charges.

	(2) The Harris, NYT/CBS, and Zogby polls all show a recent growth
in anti-war sentiment.  Surveys by the Chicago Council of Foreign
Relations and PIPA show Americans' opposition to preemptive war.

	(3) My condemnations of Clinton's policies are on record in
campaign speeches, newspaper columns, letters to editors, and broadcasts
of my weekly program of political commentary on WEFT-FM.

C. G. Estabrook



DOC 2, JIM DEY TO CGE:
======================
Mr. Estabrook, 

We are, of course, pleased to print your occasional letters to the editor.
However, we cannot allow you to have both the first and last word
regarding each topic you choose to address. It's our preference that
authors of individual letters not engage in a protracted debate. In this
case, you submitted a letter, and one of our readers responded. If you
respond, he'll want to respond, ad infinitum, ad nauseum [sic]. We've been
through this before on other topics with other writers. We try to limit
our letter writers to one per month, a rule that is sometimes compromised
because of a shortage of letters. At any rate, you had the first word, and
your critic had the last. The end. If you would like to write on another
or a related topic in the future, we will be pleased to try to accommodate
you. If you have any questions, feel free to call me. Thanks again for
your interest.

Jim Dey 
N-G 351-5369



DOC 3, CGE TO JIM DEY:
======================
Mr. Dey:

It's actions like this that give your paper the reputation it has in this
community.  Its politics are well known; what is less well known are the
manipulations of news and commentary that give the appearance of debate,
without the reality.

Even the justification you offer is rather bumptiously self-contradictory:
you won't print my letter because you "cannot allow [me] to have the last
word" -- at the same time that "he'll want to respond..."!  In fact, I
think the evidence is that debates in letters columns spark readers'
interest -- and circulation.

In this case, you're allowing a letter writer to make specific charges
against me -- and then refusing to print my response. The average reader
will assume that the charges cannot be answered.  I will assume that's
what you want.  It would be consistent with your general position.

It's unfortunate if not surprising that the only daily in town so
carefully polices the limits of allowable debate.  And the situation is
probably worse now.  Perhaps you saw Laurie Garrett's memo to her former
Newsday colleagues (2/28/05), in which she writes, "I have been in 47
states of the USA since 9/11, and I can attest to the horrible impact the
deterioration of journalism has had on the national psyche. I have found
America a place of great and confused fearfulness..."

I accept with pleasure your invitation "to write on another or a related
topic in the future" and am glad to know that you "will be pleased to try
to accommodate me."  Shall I send you a "guest commentary" -- perhaps on
what Americans' opinions of this war actually are?

C. G. Estabrook



DOC 4, JIM DEY TO CGE:
======================
CE, 

Sorry you're disappointed, and I apologize for my "bumptiously
self-contradictory" explanation. I certainly didn't mean to be
disagreeable or conceited in my reply. I guess our rationale boils down to
this. You get one bite at the apple. If you object so vehemently to people
disagreeing with your letters, you might want to reconsider whether to
write them. I'm sorry that the gentleman to whom you were responding was
critical, but I'm afraid it's just one of the risks of competing in the
marketplace of ideas. If you wish to submit a guest commentary, feel free
to contact Tom Kacich (351-5221). He's in charge of the editorial page.

Jim Dey



DOC 5, CGE TO JIM DEY:
====================== 
I think you miss the point.  I'm in favor of discussion and debate. You're
not. Far from objecting to people who disagree with my ideas, I want them
to have a chance to discuss them.  That means give and take. Your
"marketplace of ideas" is as controlled as the specious "free trade" our
government speaks of. --CGE


	###