I felt much the same way when I read the piece, though I don't agree that the WSJ should ashamed for running it. The piece gives us Orloff's viewpoint, deplorable though that may be. I think can safe say, thanks to to article, where he is coming from. And I think that is useful.
Hello Frank, I meant not ashamed by the p.o.v., but ashamed to run a poorly thought out piece with unsubstantiated opinions, padded out with hoary old cliches and platitudes about "the pen is mightier than the sword."ReplyDelete
I know if I had submitted such a piece with this kind of drivel, a stern editor would have kicked me to the curb... to use another cliche.
It's badly written.
My mistake, Cynthia. The old newsman's weakness. I was just interested in knowing what this guy "thought." Actually, though, you are right. I probably would have raised hell if someone had brought me this when I was an editor. And the WSJ usually does better.ReplyDelete
It does. Guess the lure of a lotta hits displaced editorial judgment.ReplyDelete
I think one of the people I quoted, John Tufts, put it well: We tolerate a certain artistic flexibility with regard to the truth because it shows us a greater truth. But this one is bending the truth to bring us to a conclusion that is an unsubstantiated claim. Which he clouds with cliches about the pen being mightier than the sword, etc., to make the whole endeavor sound grander than it is.