[New-Poetry] Mean Spirited Bias

[Anny Ballardini]

I still like The New York Times, as a matter of fact it is my homepage when 
I connect. I use some articles in class. And I am sorry to hear of the 
comment made on Creeley's work, I can remember it.
They should be smarter, give some space to the kind of literature they do 
not consider highbrow enough to be included among their pages. How many 
articles do I skip because not interested in their chosen authors, and how 
many readers did they lose with that quotation on Creeley's work or on 
running obituaries late because they have to _take a distance_ with some 
Authors?
Enlightened editors are very rare, and they bring a profit to both newspaper 
and culture.
Good editors choose intelligent journalists and let them free to write and 
make suggestions.
At this point, they are the ones who educate the readers, not the opposite, 
as some would like it to be.

From: <elemenope at icubed.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 10:02 PM


> For the same reason that at the recent Blair-Bush press conference, the
> only quote the drive-by media used was the one where W regretted that his
> wife was right and he shouldn't have used the classic Texan, "Wanted Dead
> Or Alive" one.  W's defense of his colleague Blair was quite good, I
> thought, when a smiling-like-a-snake Brit flak presumed the Prime
> Minister's upcoming forced retirement.  No quotes of that.
>
> Just mean spirited darts intended to hurt, defame, deflate.  That's the
> contorted, twisted face of the New York Times.
>
> But neither the Brit or our press people advanced anything but loaded
> rhetorical questions intended to pull out the rug rather than to advance
> the power of public induction or deduction.
>
> The NY Times Press has become its own faction with a state-of-mind you
> have to share with them in order to get a job to ask their phony questions
> at all.
>
> Richard Dillon
>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 07:49:25 -0400
>> From: "Barone, Dennis" <dbarone at sjc.edu>
>> To: <new-poetry at wiz.cath.vt.edu>
>> Message-ID:
>>
>>
>> I read the obituary for Peter Viereck in the Times and then saw it posted
>> on this site.  I came across the Viereck obit while looking for Gilbert
>> Sorrentino's.  I wanted to see what the Times said, but at first there 
>> was
>> no obituary and then one ran late.  It was mean spirited and quoted 
>> people
>> who had nothing good to say about Sorrentino.  The one for Viereck was of
>> a completely different sort and quoted the author himself at length.  I
>> recall that when Robert Creeley died for some reason that couldn't just
>> have been by accident quoted another poet who said of Creeley, "the
>> trouble with his short poems is that they are not short enough."  Why, 
>> out
>> of all the millions of words written and said about Creeley, did the 
>> Times
>> include this quotation?  Why did run an obituary of Sorrentino late and
>> very clearly a biased one, too?
>>
>> Dennis Barone
>
>