My weekly Independent Weekly email just showed up in my inbox, and would you look at what they've got on the front cover: three unflattering pictures of Thomas Stith. The three pictures are arranged and edited in a way that is, in what I'd be shocked - SHOCKED - if it were more than a coincidence, quite reminiscent of Stith's attack mailing on Bell.
That bit is included as a graphic in the article inside, which is a great reminder of why we're so lucky to have the Independent around. It pulls no punches in going right after Stith, and there's not a thing about the article that I would call unbiased, but frankly, I'm fine with that. I've felt for a while that journalists treating "balance" and "objectivity" as immutable laws that must always be followed, as opposed to characteristics of a style that should be useful but not ubiquitous, isn't really a healthy thing. Looking through Mosi Secret's piece, there's a lot of solid factual information and substantive reporting, but also plenty of well formed persuasive writing, nailing Stith to a few posts and other sundry stationary objects. (New fact I learned: Stith only sits on one council subcommittee. The other six sit on at least 9 each, with Cole-McFadden sitting on 22.)
Attack media? Yup. Biased? Oh, yeah. Deserved? Entirely.
Recent Comments