none of us is as dumb as all of us
The editor of the local newspaper says that when we anonymous bloggers point out that unsigned editorials are anonymous, we’re wrong because they’re not anonymous. Because they’re not unsigned, they’re signed by everyone. I don’t buy this collective mind nonsense. Someone wrote it. Not all of you. If you think we’re dumb enough to buy that, you’re wrong. If you think it indicates someone is responsible or accountable, you’re also wrong.
February 9th, 2011 at 11:06 am
I’ve always assumed that an unsigned editorial was written by the paper itself and represented the views of the editorial staff, nothing more. I would never be arrogant enough to think that something I wrote represents everyone. You have to have some sort of pysch complex to think your words speak for all mankind.
February 9th, 2011 at 11:25 am
OHIO: You took the words out of my mouth. (You spoke for me.)
February 9th, 2011 at 11:33 am
ViolentIndifference: Some people say I’m patronizing (thats means I explain to them what things mean using simple words).
February 9th, 2011 at 11:34 am
π
February 9th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Huh?
February 9th, 2011 at 11:57 am
π
February 9th, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Elitist thought by the same kind of people who gave you the French Aristocracy or the Romanov Dynasty in Imperial Russia, and we know what eventually happened to them. If it wasn’t for the Funnies and the Want-Ads, most Newspapers would have dried up years ago.
February 9th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
The only reason we still get the paper is for the wife’s coupons. The rest just get recycled, unread every week. It’s only the weekend papers (3 days) but it still ticks me off.
February 9th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
The advantage of communal editorial opinions is that they supposedly have more oomph, higher moral capital, increased vitamin content, or whatever you use to describe consensus as the bestest of all opinions. That this is absurd on its face does not stop those who deal in consensus.
Because if 98% of us think that socialism will work thistime, who are those 2% with historical literacy to argue?
February 10th, 2011 at 8:52 am
I had a letter published in the NY Times recently. Responded to some serious fallacies in an article. They printed it, but made us go through a law review like fact checking process to ensure every little thing I said was correct. Which it was. Which means everything they said was 100% wrong. But that’s ok, according to them, because “opinion” pieces aren’t news pieces and dont require fact checking.
Of course, editorial board member author of the opinion piece was that based on facts which turn out to be 100% wrong only had a short smug juvenile – unpublished – response to our letter.
Assholes.