Checking in on the watchdog"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Apparently I'm not the only person who thinks that the chit-chatty, flip style of The Post-Star's editorials reflects poorly on the paper.
Though ignoring the unprofessional style, they do get the content right once in a while, such as here and here.
The paper refuses to allow online responses to letters to the editor. Their logic is: Our letter writers are held to a standard that requires them to sign their letters. The commenting feature online does not require the respondent to be identified. We don't feel that is fair. If anyone would like to respond to a letter, they must be held to the same standard as the letter writer and be identified. They can do this by writing their own letter to the editor through the Web site or responding directly to the editor.
Frankly, I understand and sympathize with this position. However, I find it a bit hypocritical that they would then continue to allow 'Don Coyote' to make 'his' cheap shot of the day. 'Don Coyote,' I have no doubt, is nothing more than a cover for Post-Star staff members to make snide comments about public figures without compromising their 'objectivity.'
Given how often the paper's managing editor brags (usually here) about how the daily gives prominence of place to local stories, I found it odd that they would place a wire service article about Martin Luther King Day celebrations on the front page of the print version while a story about the local King Day celebration was relegated to the local section.
Accordingly, the paper's coverage of the local event was disappointing. Very brief remarks from local politicians earned four paragraphs in the article. Yet the magnificent and powerful remarks by the keynote speaker Rev. Dr. Glorya Askew only earned a token half sentence. I guess this is what happens you provide substance instead of soundbites.