sábado, 3 de março de 2012

Open Letter to the New Editor of the Rome Observer

 
To the new managing editor:
I did not realize that you had assumed the Rome Observer as of January, 2009. Congratulations and I wish the best for you as the new editor of this popular local weekly. The article I wrote in regards to Jeffrey Sterling has nothing to do with you personally since you were not around when the Rome Observer published the gay activist’s letter. The whining complaints of the homoerotic appeared in the paper a year ago.
The Rome Observer was founded by the beloved and admired ex-mayor of Rome, Carl Eilenberg. True to his universal Jewish nature, Eilenberg wanted a newspaper that spoke of Rome’s history, past traditions, places of cultural value, the immigrants and people that formed her character, local color and spirit, etc. Eilenberg did not cater to the rich or elite, but involved the simple folk of all classes, color, religion and ethnic background with a wit of humor and fun. That is why Elienberg’s paper was read by everyone with interest and gusto. He embraced all Romans with his paternal affection and warm heart. In return, Romans loved and accepted Eilenberg with sincerity and goodness. With his age advancing and health becoming precarious, Eilenberg retired from the newspaper and Rome itself and moved to Florida.
The Rome Observer, under the supervision of Susan (a writer in her own right), continued being fair and balanced. I especially liked the competition between her and Carl. Carl had a column entitled “Got a minute?” and Susan had her own corner entitled “Got a Second?” In these past few years, I noticed how the Rome Observer simply went downhill. I don’t know if Susan simply let up on her professionalism or if the paper went to the hands of a third editor. It became mushier than a plate of Quaker’s Oat meal and the articles extremely neuter, socialites’ and overly-feminine. The paper espoused so-called liberal causes (animal rights, homoeroticism, abortion, etc) with no right to a response, thus turning it into a biased, discriminating, prejudiced species of snobbish short-sighted false intellectualist type of informative bulletin.
I hope, though, that with your command and direction of the newspaper, things will improve. In true journalism, both sides of an issue are taken into consideration and equal time is given to both parties (not 0 or 30% to one and 70 or 100% to the other). Sterling is allowed five or six letters in a newspaper to gripe about his homo-erotic rights, but no one is allowed to have an article printed to respond to him. Where are fair play, authentic journalism and freedom of speech in such matters? If a newspaper is afraid to print the truth and does not have the courage to do so, it should simply fold up since it is not deserving of being read by anyone and the only thing it will spread are lies. If a newspaper wants to declare itself as the vehicle of abortion, homoeroticism or animal rights and feminist causes, it should say so and be sincere and consistent in its principles. It should tell the public: “The editorial staff of our paper is all in favor of abortion, homoeroticism, animal rights and the use of embryonic remains for the cosmetic industry; therefore we will only print articles that favor these issues and will refuse texts that are opposed to them.” In this way, those opposed to these issues will not waste their time and energies writing letters or articles that they know will never be printed. It is cowardly and false for a paper to say that it is unbiased and accepts all letters and ideas and then to discriminate what comes, accepting only what is in accord with their prejudices. This is a grave dishonesty and falseness on the part of a newspaper that wants everyone to believe it to be fair and true to all opinions.
Father Anthony Mellace

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário