Monday, January 16, 2006
shameful
The reason I post on this blog is because I generally think RedEye is silly and worth a laugh. But today's page three story (that's hardly the word for it... blurb?) on the "threatened legacy" of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was just sickening.
Now I'm not one for sacred cows. Any person in this country -- white, black, whatever -- should be open to criticism where criticism is due. Nor do I think we should give over MLK day or the upcoming Black History Month to artificial displays of racial harmony. But when you're going to run a story questioning the legacy of a figure as important as King, particularly on a day when many people and the federal government commemorate his life and work, you have to do it in a way that is respectful and, more importantly, thorough.
Today's RedEye ran the following AP blurb: "On what would have been Martin Luther King Jr.'s 77th birthday, his legacy is under attack. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, is recovering from a stroke that partially paralyzed her. The couple's four children are divided over whether to sell the family-run center that promotes King's teachings. And a new book alleges that King had extramarital affairs and a nasty split with civil rights colleague Rev. Jesse Jackson." Red follows up with three quotes commenting on the story (the hallmark of this daily feature, "3 for all.")
Even if this feature had only included a generic, saccharine story on various ways people are commemorating King today, it would speak poorly about RedEye. "3 for all" is a feature mostly drawn from the wires and, if Red works like most papers, not a high priority for the editors. Now Red draws a lot of its content from the wires and the Trib, but you'd think they could at least block out a column or a page for "Martin Luther King story here." In a world where their editors actually gave a damn, they might think about ways that King's work was inspiring young people today (not normally a focus of MLK day features, which tend to focus on older people remembering the civil rights movement). Apparently we care more about celebrities and drink specials.
But to make things even worse (somehow, they always can), Red attempts to tackle a topic completely disproportionate to its one-column blurb. The legacy of Dr. King is not contained in family squabbles or gossip. It's the ideas of nonviolent resistance, the right to vote and to be respected, the recognition that America needed (and needs) racial healing. Certainly the fate of his family and the institutions he created is interesting, but to *seriously* address the question of the King legacy would require thinking about the state of race relations in America, barriers to voting rights and economic advancement, the state of black political activism, all that. And to try to address King's legacy in a way that *isn't* serious is simply irresponsible.
ALSO: What is this, Copyediting 101? The smoking ban on page three should take "effect" not "affect," unless it's a particularly touchy-feely smoking ban.
BUT: Props to whichever writer came up with the "Red-Headed League" headline on the back page. It's a Sherlock Holmes reference, proof that someone at Red is reading something besides Us Weekly.
Now I'm not one for sacred cows. Any person in this country -- white, black, whatever -- should be open to criticism where criticism is due. Nor do I think we should give over MLK day or the upcoming Black History Month to artificial displays of racial harmony. But when you're going to run a story questioning the legacy of a figure as important as King, particularly on a day when many people and the federal government commemorate his life and work, you have to do it in a way that is respectful and, more importantly, thorough.
Today's RedEye ran the following AP blurb: "On what would have been Martin Luther King Jr.'s 77th birthday, his legacy is under attack. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, is recovering from a stroke that partially paralyzed her. The couple's four children are divided over whether to sell the family-run center that promotes King's teachings. And a new book alleges that King had extramarital affairs and a nasty split with civil rights colleague Rev. Jesse Jackson." Red follows up with three quotes commenting on the story (the hallmark of this daily feature, "3 for all.")
Even if this feature had only included a generic, saccharine story on various ways people are commemorating King today, it would speak poorly about RedEye. "3 for all" is a feature mostly drawn from the wires and, if Red works like most papers, not a high priority for the editors. Now Red draws a lot of its content from the wires and the Trib, but you'd think they could at least block out a column or a page for "Martin Luther King story here." In a world where their editors actually gave a damn, they might think about ways that King's work was inspiring young people today (not normally a focus of MLK day features, which tend to focus on older people remembering the civil rights movement). Apparently we care more about celebrities and drink specials.
But to make things even worse (somehow, they always can), Red attempts to tackle a topic completely disproportionate to its one-column blurb. The legacy of Dr. King is not contained in family squabbles or gossip. It's the ideas of nonviolent resistance, the right to vote and to be respected, the recognition that America needed (and needs) racial healing. Certainly the fate of his family and the institutions he created is interesting, but to *seriously* address the question of the King legacy would require thinking about the state of race relations in America, barriers to voting rights and economic advancement, the state of black political activism, all that. And to try to address King's legacy in a way that *isn't* serious is simply irresponsible.
ALSO: What is this, Copyediting 101? The smoking ban on page three should take "effect" not "affect," unless it's a particularly touchy-feely smoking ban.
BUT: Props to whichever writer came up with the "Red-Headed League" headline on the back page. It's a Sherlock Holmes reference, proof that someone at Red is reading something besides Us Weekly.
