Anyone who knows us is aware that we are anything but apolitical. In fact, we might even qualify as a “political junkie” at the JV level. We readily and happily admit that we have strongly held partisan preferences and principles.
None-the-less, we’ve worked hard to keep Other Side out of partisan political battles, as distinquished from local issues of a political sort, which are for the most part not overtly partisan.
Every now and then, however, we observe things in our midst that are dripping in and shaped by partisan bias, and this was one of those weeks. As your faithful correspondent, we feel a duty to tell you about them, and you can be the judge of whether we’re off base.
We’re talking about two articles that appeared on The Forecaster web site this week, both reporting on local events that were organized in response to the violent clash in Charlottesville, Virginia last weekend. Neither appeared in the print edition we picked up yesterday.
We found both to be extremely deficient in their references to the facts of that clash. In the past, we’ve generally found The Forecaster to be pretty accurate in their reporting, especially when judged by those stories in which we have first hand knowledge. We won’t go so far as to say that the lapse this week results from them becoming a branch of the Portland Press Herald media conglomerate, but we will certainly be watching more carefully from here on out.
We can’t be sure what coverage of the Charlottesville activity you watched, but the coverage we saw, in video form, clearly portrayed that there were two “sides” or factions on the scene and engaged in pretty serious physical ‘rumbling’ involving various forms of cudgels, shields, helmets, flame throwers (whether working or not), hurled items, and all the other modern day accoutrements of civil unrest, as some like to call it, or rioting, as others might call it.
Clearly, the violence involved two opposing groups, because it was violence against individuals, rather than violence against property. At least in the coverage we saw.
Now to The Forecaster reports posted on their web site. We really don’t want to give you the links and generate more clicks than they deserve, but we suppose we have no choice. We’ll begin with the content that jumped out at us as intentionally and blatantly one sided.
First, their coverage of a rally in Portland on Sunday published on their web site on Monday the 14th. Here’s a snip of the article’s opening lines:
Here’s the passage that tweaked us:
In Trump’s Aug. 12 response to the violence that began as white nationalists, Confederate sympathizers and neo-Nazis objected to the planned removal of Lee’s statue from a Charlottesville park, the president said “many sides” were responsible for the fighting, injuries and death.
But for the people in downtown Portland, there were not two sides to be considered, only a growing presence of intolerance abetted by the Trump administration that could only be confronted at the most basic levels.
One of the photos in the article is below, and as you can see, it centers on a sign claiming that only one side was involved.
You can take this two ways….blatant distortion of the facts behind the actual Charlottesville event, or an “inadvertent” error of omission. Clearly the nation is divided on how they see it.
But arguing for The Forecaster becomes more of a challenge when you look at the second item, which reports on a far smaller event in Yarmouth. Here are the relevant points.
Yarmouth responds to Virginia violence
By The Forecaster on August 15, 2017
About 40 people gathered in downtown Yarmouth Sunday evening, Aug. 13, to show their opposition to bigotry and racism after a demonstration last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and Confederate sympathizers turned violent and deadly. The Yarmouth marchers heard statements by local lawmakers and then marched together singing “We Shall Overcome.” (Roger S. Duncan / For The Forecaster)
This coverage clearly describes the Virginia event as a “violent and deadly” affair in which only one element on the political spectrum was involved, as if the fighting shown in the video coverage was between friends just to generate news reports. Gimme a break, will ya?
We’ll stop here, rather than inflame any local passions with our essay. But you can bet we’ll no longer accord The Forecaster the respect we have since we first started reading it. And we know many in our midst once did as well.
For years we’ve referred to our local print media as The Ostrich; maybe this is the start of The Forecaster’s campaign to take that title away from them. We hope not, but these are perilous, uncertain, and unpredictable times,
Come to think of it, we haven’t even considered the effect these events will have on the mental stability of Bowdoin students as they show up on campus. We suggest the Counseling Service “brace for impact,” as they say in the Navy.
And then there’s this:
The Portland event coverage link: http://www.theforecaster.net/hundreds-denounce-racism-in-downtown-portland-rally/
The Yarmouth event coverage link: http://www.theforecaster.net/yarmouth-responds-to-virginia-violence/
No comments:
Post a Comment