Letter: Shame on Leader for publishing ‘nonsense’ (Printed Jan. 18, 2008)
Editor:
The history of journalism is tied to the desire of people to know the news; hear about events that affect their lives. Newspaper publishing in particular has been closely tied to politics, as publishers have aligned themselves with one viewpoint or another, and used the power of their medium to advance certain agendas.
It goes against reason, then, to see a newspaper column actually discouraging people from participating in the political process. There it is, though, in the Jan. 11 issue of the Leader, where Ward Peck gives five reasons why Maine’s caucus system does not affect the presidential nomination process. What a shame on the legacy of journalism, and shame on The Leader for publishing such nonsense.
Peck’s perspective is both short-lived and shortsighted, based on one experience with a caucus, in 2004. From this he concludes that caucuses are “dumb” and that Maine, for reasons not worth repeating, is some electoral backwater. If he had done his homework, Peck would know that the caucus originated as participatory democracy, where people do not just mark ballots, but actually discuss matters and candidates at hand at a local level. This notion of discussion and debate to influence a political outcome is a refreshing alternative to the waves and waves of TV announcements, grandstanding and sound bites that drive campaigns today.
If Peck is “disoriented” by the caucus process, perhaps he should do more than provide flippant reasons for dropping out. Thoughtfulness is required. As it is in journalism. Based on his views of the electoral process, he may want to consider a different career.
Jonathan Hutter
Scarborough
The history of journalism is tied to the desire of people to know the news; hear about events that affect their lives. Newspaper publishing in particular has been closely tied to politics, as publishers have aligned themselves with one viewpoint or another, and used the power of their medium to advance certain agendas.
It goes against reason, then, to see a newspaper column actually discouraging people from participating in the political process. There it is, though, in the Jan. 11 issue of the Leader, where Ward Peck gives five reasons why Maine’s caucus system does not affect the presidential nomination process. What a shame on the legacy of journalism, and shame on The Leader for publishing such nonsense.
Peck’s perspective is both short-lived and shortsighted, based on one experience with a caucus, in 2004. From this he concludes that caucuses are “dumb” and that Maine, for reasons not worth repeating, is some electoral backwater. If he had done his homework, Peck would know that the caucus originated as participatory democracy, where people do not just mark ballots, but actually discuss matters and candidates at hand at a local level. This notion of discussion and debate to influence a political outcome is a refreshing alternative to the waves and waves of TV announcements, grandstanding and sound bites that drive campaigns today.
If Peck is “disoriented” by the caucus process, perhaps he should do more than provide flippant reasons for dropping out. Thoughtfulness is required. As it is in journalism. Based on his views of the electoral process, he may want to consider a different career.
Jonathan Hutter
Scarborough
Comments