THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 21, 1996 TAG: 9601200002
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM
LENGTH: Medium: 97 lines
Last Sunday, the Commentary section ran two virtually identical versions of a column defending Hillary Clinton because (take your pick):
1. Our editors are only interested in the liberal point of view.
2. They wanted to annoy readers.
3. Our proofreaders were napping.
4. We're looking for ways to waste newsprint.
5. Someone(s) goofed.
Answers 1-4 were submitted by some three dozen readers, who saw in the double-dosed column a conspiracy of startling proportions. Isn't the real reason, No. 5, bad enough?
Apparently not.
``It looked purposeful because it was titled two different things,'' said one caller. ``It doesn't look like it was just accidentally printed twice. To me it typifies the bias of the newspaper.''
The column in question was by Tom Teepen, a national correspondent for Cox Newspapers. It ran on the front page of Commentary, as a sidebar to a Q&A about the Hillary controversy, with the headline, ``The get-Clinton industry is zeroing in on the first lady. But there isn't much to the allegations.''
Commentary is a repository for opinion pieces. Our ``downfall'' was that the same article ran again, four pages later, on the editorial page of Commentary. The headline there was, ``Striking at Bill through Hillary.''
I could detour here into a discourse about short headlines vs. long ones, but I'll stick to the point.
The point is the barrage of phone calls, letters and e-mails that came all week - most assuming the duplication was done on purpose. Only one caller had a sense of humor about it.
``I didn't like Tom Teepen's front-page Commentary article on the first lady but, in the spirit of slightly opening my closed mind, I read it anyway,'' said a Virginia Beach man. ``But when I read it again on page J4, under Another View, I didn't like it any better. That's double jeopardy in my book.''
The double jeopardy occurred because two different editors are responsible for those pages. One handles the Commentary front and related pages; another editor oversees the Editorial and Perspectives pages. And still a third does the book-review section.
The column in question moved over the New York Times wire - not once but twice, so each editor thought they had exclusive dibs on it. Had the editors swapped story plans they might have noticed the problem, but they didn't. (Among themselves, journalists are notoriously bad communicators.)
What was interesting, and of course disturbing, were the motives and ``hidden agenda'' seen by so many readers - even though the Commentary front last Sunday included a column by Ralph Reed, executive director of the Christian Coalition and a strong voice of the ``religious right.'' And the lead editorial that day was pretty supportive of Republican Gov. George F. Allen.
Also, the Pilot has run its share of syndicated columns that have pilloried Hillary - the famous ``congenital liar'' column by William Safire (albeit days late) and others by columnists Tony Snow, Suzanne Fields and Sandy Grady. Apparently, that didn't count last Sunday.
It's evident that many readers still don't see the newspaper as neutral or balanced. As one put it, the repeated Hillary column was ``a complete reflection of the bias and the slanting of the news.''
TARGET FOR TROUBLE. And while we're on the subject of Hillary Clinton, one reader was troubled by the artwork with the Sunday Commentary package. Under the headline ``Targeting Hillary,'' it showed a red bull's-eye target over the first lady's face.
Tom Stroup of Norfolk thought it was in ``poor taste, insensitive, and sensational,'' particularly on the eve of a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King, ``himself fallen by an assassin's bullet from a rifle with a telescopic sight.''
Stroup said his reaction has nothing to do with supporting or challenging Clinton.
``Whether she is controversial or not, our First Lady deserves more consideration than this,'' he said. ``. . . Let's encourage rebuttals, not bullets.''
I think he has a good point.
HERE & THERE. Readers were steamed up this week about a variety of things, among them:
The firing of Duane Harding as WTKR meteorologist. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be fodder for the public editor, but we were a last resort for unhappy ``Dr. Duane'' fans who wanted to vent. So many called TV columnist Larry Bonko that his voice-mail kept filling to capacity.
``Stalking the albino deer,'' a Daily Break story about a Smithfield hunter's quest for a rare white buck. Many readers were outraged that someone would try to kill a ``beautiful rare animal.'' They also found it ironic that, a week earlier, we had run a heart-warming story about four men rescuing a deer from an icy creek.
A reference to ``badass kid'' in a Sports column Tuesday about ballplayer Glenn Davis, involved in a local lawsuit. ``Watch your language,'' was the message from two callers. I agree that we should, but there are times when a little slang says a lot. Other than a direct quote, though, I wouldn't exactly recommend the phrase in a straight news story.
by CNB