OCR Text |
Show The Emery County Review, Tuesday, December 9, 2008 VIEWPOINT A7 Opinion and Letters to the Editor My View Conviction Tested in Response to Newspaper Article C. Josie Luke Two weeks ago an article appeared in the Emery County Review titled, Sub for Santa Program in Search of New Home. I wrote the article after receiving information from a report given on the situation in Emery County Commission Meeting and an interview with the person who gave the report. The week that I wrote the article was a busy news week for me, and honestly, the small article didn’t seem like one that would get too much attention, although I hoped it would get enough for people to resolve what I understood was a dilemma. But as I sat in county commission meeting the next week, I soon understood that the story was certainly receiving attention, especially from one group, who was quite concerned with a phrase I had used. I listened as a representative of that group addressed the commission, naming this newspaper and reading my carefully crafted article with disapproval, claiming that the information in it was false, and that in speaking with the source I had used, they understood that she had not intended what she said to be taken in such a way. I felt like I was in school again, accused of doing something bad in front of the whole class, and feeling guilty even though I had not done it. My heart was pounding, my eyes darted around the room, and I felt myself becoming quite angry. I felt as if I had been hung out to dry, and my careful, I thought tactful article, was being called bad journalism. Now, sometime ago I wrote an editorial about this anger issue, arguing that a person does not have the ability to actually make another person angry. As I sat in the meeting, I must have forgotten! Gratefully, somehow my rational self talked my irrational self out of responding angrily to what was occurring. When I believed nearly all of my control was sapped, a commissioner stepped in and stated he believed the article contained the facts of what had been described at the previous meeting, saving me from losing my careful restraint. I hurriedly left the room as soon as the meeting was over, consciously avoiding eye contact, and desperately hoping those who had so derided me were unaware that the person sitting three rows in back of the podium they spoke at was the writer of the article which had so upset them. It was not until later that day that I remembered my conviction about anger and was able to discuss the situation with the source, who had tried to contact me to make me aware of the concern. That conversation proved to cool my anger; however, though I really do believe that a person can’t make another angry, I was, and still am, frustrated by the situation. My integrity and the integrity of the newspaper I work for were challenged in a public meeting, and so I use a fitting means to address the issue. As a journalist, at times I walk a thin line between responsibly reporting the news and being tactful in using sources, to ensure that they will be willing to give me information the next time I may need it. So, I chose to call the partnership referred to in the article not “feasible,” a term that I thought tactfully explained a complicated situation. But, if it undermined any of the positive efforts of the group, I can assure them that was unintended. I can only hope that the episode served to bring to light the need for better understanding and more open communication. After all, what better time than the holidays to offer understanding, and what better cause than providing children with a Merry Christmas? You may not be able to make someone angry, but I do believe you should do all you can to help them to be happy. Commentary Obama and Clinton: Can This Marriage Last? Patrick J. Buchanan Having savaged each other for a year, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have now formed a rare partnership in power. Not since James Garfield chose James G. Blaine has a new president chosen his principal rival to be secretary of state. What does this tell us? First, don’t take campaign oratory all that seriously. Second, unlike Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy, Ron Paul or Jesse Helms, Hillary and Barack are pragmatists. They do not let ideology or past insults get in the way of a mutually beneficial deal. But this is not some Hitler-Stalin pact of American politics. Dick Morris has it right. As in a parliamentary system, Established January 2, 2007 James L. Davis, Publisher & Editor w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Colleen A. Davis, Co-Publisher, Office & Advertising Manager C. Josie Luke, Assistant Editor Lyndsay Reid, Advertising Design Kristi Renz, Advertising Sales Kathy P. Ockey, Staff Journalist Casey Wood, Webmaster Our Vision To be a valued member of the communities we serve and to be trusted as an honest, truthful and reliable source of news. w w w Our Mission To inform, entertain and provide a public forum for the discussion of events impacting the people of the Emery County area and to inform with news and features relevant to those who call the Castle Valley area home w w w Our Principles We will be ethical in all of our efforts to provide information to the public. We will be unbiased in our reporting and will report the facts as we see them and do our best to focus on the good news of the county, its people, history and way of life. We will be strong and active members of the community and assist in any way that we are able. We will strive to provide the best quality product possible to our readers and advertisers...always. We will verify the details of news we are reporting and if a mistake is made on our part we will correct it immediately. We will always listen to suggestions on how to do our job better. Editorial Submission Guidelines The Emery County Review welcomes and invites letters to the editor and guest opinion articles on public policy or current events. We welcome letters of thanks to individuals who have helped make our community a better place to live, work and play. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit all submissions for space constraints, clarity and errors in fact. Submissions must include author’s name and contact information. Contact information will not be published. Letter’s and opinion articles can be sent to jldavis@theemerycountyreview.com, mailed to The Emery County Review, P.O. Box 487, Orangeville, UT. 84537 or faxed to 435-748-2543. where Cabinet members come straight off the majority party front bench, Barack, as prime minister, is knitting together a coalition government that allocates its highest honors to its greatest stars. As Tony Blair named rival Gordon Brown as chancellor of the exchequer, Barack made Joe Biden his vice president, Hillary his secretary of state and Bill Richardson his secretary of commerce. Had John Edwards not fouled his nest, he, too, would be in the Cabinet. Perhaps attorney general. And while Barack has taken a risk naming Hillary, with her national following and ruthless courtiers, Hillary’s investment is even greater. Should a clash erupt, as it did between Ronald Reagan and Al Haig, Barack, though at great cost, can terminate her and her career. The idea that a cashiered secretary of state could challenge President Obama in 2012, capture the nomination and win, after humiliating and dumping our first African-American president, is absurd. And the Clintons know it. Absent divine intervention, Obama is the nominee in 2012. Hillary has to know this is likely her last chance to make history. Thus she seized the offer of State, and Bill agreed to go the Full Monty on his financial relationships. What does this marriage of convenience, with Biden, Bob Gates and Gen. Jim Jones as ushers, mean for U.S. foreign policy? Methinks the antiwar left has the crying towel out too early. Our new decider’s heart is still on the left. Moreover, his political interests argue for relegating to the trash bin of history a Bush-neocon policy of endless war until the Middle East resembles the Middle West. America cannot sustain the wars that Bush’s policy produced, nor those it promises. Look, then, for Obama to make a large, early down payment on his pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months. Though the Status of Forces Agreement accepted by Iraq doubles the time Obama has to pull out, to December 2011, the nation, not just the left, wants out, with but a single caveat: America does not want a Saigon ending. What happens after -- whether Shia attack Shia, or join to crush Sunnis, or Arabs engage Kurds -- is not a war Americans are willing to intervene in with any new surge of U.S. troops. About Afghanistan there is a gathering consensus that victory over a resurgent Taliban with a sanctuary in Pakistan’s border region cannot be achieved without an infusion of U.S. troops this country is unwilling to support. Escalating the war means more air strikes that have alienated the Afghan people as well as President Kharzi. More Predator strikes in a Pakistan where anti-Americanism is rife and the government is besieged hardly seems a promising policy. What is the U.S. bottom line in Kabul? Not the impossible dream of a democracy modeled on our own but a government committed to keeping al-Qaida out. Given the bloody beating the Taliban have taken for seven years, they may be amenable to such an arrangement. But the first test of the Obama-Clinton team may be Iran. Tehran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has never declared it in violation of the non-proliferation treaty. Yet, the suspicion is broad and deep in Washington and Tel Aviv that Iran is hell-bent on building an atom bomb. Obama and Hillary have both said that will not happen, no matter what it takes. If war with Iran is to be averted, the new team must move swiftly to talk to Tehran and put its cards on the table. It is here that the potential for a split between Barack and Hillary is greatest. If Likud’s “Bibi” Netanyahu wins the Israeli election, he will push hard for U.S. air strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, and push back against any Obama deal with Tehran. With the Israeli lobby and a Jewish community that gave Barack 80 percent of its votes, plus the neocons and Evangelical right calling for strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites, would the Obama-Clinton team stand united -- against war? Would Hillary, a former senator from New York who relied even more heavily than Barack on Jewish contributions and votes, stand by Barack if the two disagree on whether the survival of Israel is at stake? On second thought, the antiwar left is right to be nervous. (Patrick Buchanan is the author of the new book “Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War.” Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.) |