Roanoke Times Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc. DATE: SATURDAY, March 10, 1990 TAG: 9003102709 SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO SOURCE: CHARLES R. SELF DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Balderdash. The more accurate vulgar term also begins with b.
Rooney did nothing that demanded CBS discipline him, thus it was impossible for Burke to strike any balance. What the wimps of wonderland did was knuckle under to special-interest groups, again. The Roanoke Times & World-News then added its own conditions, conditions that didn't exist:
"Had there been proof . . . Rooney made the remark The Advocate attributed to him - especially if he had made it on the air - firing would probably have been in order." First, Rooney denied making the remark at all. Second, no one at any time even speculated about the remark being aired - outside your editorial. You set up a straw man, then knock down the guy standing next to him with the backlash.
Bringing in Jimmy the Greek, and misquoting his asinine statement, and trying to compare the two statements, was comparing apples and oranges in statements; that gives apples and oranges in situations.
Granted, Rooney often speaks, because of his job, as a network representative, of sorts. An editorialist, as it were.
That doesn't mean that CBS has rights over his off-camera speech, and it certainly does not mean he should be suspended for being misquoted (which may be charitable to The Advocate).
Rooney cannot prove he didn't say what the newspaper cites him as saying: So what? He's not in criminal court here. If he were, the paper would be required to prove that he did make the statement, since Rooney is the one being pilloried.
I'd be curious to know what sort of accuracy record The Advocate has over the past few years. Are they prone to misquoting people, either by accident or deliberately? Is the paper ever used as a vehicle of revenge? Is it willing to lie or cheat to aid its special-interest group? Many such publications are.
Your editorial writer needs to go back and rethink the question, which is not about the kind of comment a network wants from one of its high-profile commentators, nor is it about the fact that Rooney, either in or out of his persona as a curmudgeon, may be arrogant in his offhand comments. How would you know if those were offhand, or thought out? And is possible accuracy, as in the admitted comment, arrogant simply because it goes against the conventional so-called wisdom? It might serve better to check and see if Johnny has so much difficulty learning to read these days because he is genetically incapable of learning much of anything.
To be denied the right to present rationales for one's opinions is a refutation of the First Amendment, regardless of other issues raised to cloud that simple fact. Rooney is paid for being a curmudgeon, and was suspended for being curmudgeonly. You call it arrogance. I call it nonsense.
It would be no wonder if he looked around and felt arrogant. Now, let's see if an equally arrogant, and envious ($800,000 a year is a lot of money), editorial writer can come up with the appropriate question.
by CNB