Our critics are often uninformed
As you might expect, Gazette staffers have plenty of critics, many of whom think nothing of firing off anonymous e-mails to state their displeasure at us.
Sometimes they make good points; other times they make statements like the one below. I put in the quote marks, but otherwise I copied as it came in, spelling and punctuation errors and all:
"after reading the story about Mr. Seifried's illness all I could think is, here we go again, Peck and his chicken littles are doing another scary story about evil tobacco and the ever present but just as evil second hand smoke. Even the dumbest idiot could see through your smoke screen. When was the last time you saw a darkm blue haze in any establishment. Maybe if Peck would take off his rose coleres glasses he would see what the real world looks like. Just another example of the Democratc Party"
Well. Where do I start? First, the June 4 story by reporter Shelly Birkelo explained that Duke Seifried suffers from lung cancer, that he never smoked and that he believes the cancer came from being in a band that often played in bars so smoke-filled that the air seemed blue.
Yes, the story was developed after Seifried sent a letter to the editor, which we printed, about how the statewide smoking ban will come too late to save him and others like him. But my unenlightened critic has no idea about how that story came about or who assigned it. I had no part in it. I didn't even suggest a story. I'm not sure who did. But I do know I have no control over what stories our newsroom goes after and which ones it ignores. I suggest stories when I hear about them, but Local Editor Sid Schwartz, and our supervisor, Editor Scott Angus, are the ones who decide who does what story and when.
My critic reminds me of a recent letter writer who wrongly suggested recently that I would never step in a bar. No, I don't like smoke. I have a slight allergy to it. I applaud, as does this newspaper's management in our editorials, the coming statewide ban in all workplaces.
But my critic is uninformed to suggest I wouldn't enter a place that allows smoking. When the national bowling organization polled members a few years ago to see if we favored a smoking ban in bowling alleys, I looked at the three smokers on my team and answered "no," despite my allergy. Their smoking didn't stop me from bowling, and my wife's smoking didn't stop me from marrying her years before she finally quit.
There's probably a reason that those who would rather throw verbal bombs are happy to stay anonymous. Too often, they have no idea what they're talking about and thus don't wish to put their names behind the uninformed opinions.
Greg Peck
Jun 19, 2009 at 11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why should critics wear uniforms?
Jun 19, 2009 at 7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hey Greg, thanks for pointing out how to see blogs that don't make it in the spotlight. I was not aware that we could get to another area to see more. I appreciate it that you pointed it out. THANKS!!
Jun 19, 2009 at 2:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
BeenThereDoneThat:
As the previous poster figured out; that was just an attempt at some satire. I was going to say "grammer", but figured that would be much to obvious!
Anyway
Jun 18, 2009 at 6:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
cougar21: Reread what I wrote earlier about anonymous critics: "Sometimes they make good points..." In the sentence you quoted, you left off two important introductory words: "too often..."
We try to find those with good points from among the dozens of calls for our twice-weekly Sound Off. I'm preparing, for this blog, an inside look at how I go about editing Sound Off. Stay tuned.
Greg Peck
Jun 18, 2009 at 6:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Let's see. The Gazette thinks anonymous critics of the GAZETTE "have no idea what they're talking about and thus don't wish to put their names behind the uninformed opinions." Yet, twice a week, the Gazette specifically invites critics of EVERYONE ELSE to "Sound Off" anonymously, even though those people sure could be described as having "no idea what they're talking about and thus don't wish to put their names behind the uninformed opinions."
I don't see how the Gazette opinion editor can complain about anonymous critics for so long as Sound Off runs.
Jun 18, 2009 at 3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sannio, what did you do with that soap I sent you, then?
Jun 18, 2009 at 3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
You should just let it go Mr. Peck. Comments are just delirious ramblings from us unwashed masses.
Jun 18, 2009 at 3:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
I could care less about grammer and if people spell good.
Jun 18, 2009 at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
I like the title "Our critics are often uninformed". The original article states he had Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis, and your blog now says it's cancer!! Well...what is it. They are two drastically different diseases. I think were "uninformed" because you give us different information with every new story.
Jun 18, 2009 at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
darius... You must be referring to me when you mention "critic"! I know this might not be the proper venue to say this, but, I will anyway. You are a dealer in hope and you back it up. I was a huge critic of yours for a very long time (when I was misinformed) I want the world to know that it's ok to swallow one's pride and admit they were wrong. I WAS WRONG. I made the choice to allow the bad information influence me and it nearly kept me from my journey to success. Thin threads indeed. Thanks Darius, I'm eternally grateful. Also, this article was a great idea. Thanks to Greg Peck for writing it.
Jun 18, 2009 at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
BTDT: Nice. Perhaps you should check your post before you’re ready to send it. Re-read it- you’re guilty of your own accusation- too funny…
Jun 18, 2009 at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
I don't think I agree that everyone has a God-given right, as a taxpayer, to have an opinion. Informed opinion, based on fact--yes (but not God-given, and not because you pay taxes). But the only thing that opinions not based on fact do, is shed a lot of heat, and no light. Nice article, Greg.
Jun 18, 2009 at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
darius: Your comments are very interesting. Thanks for sharing that perspective.
To all readers of this blog: It's great that people are responding when my blog items wind up in our Web site's "Featured blog" spot, but few people seemingly see the ones that don't make that spot.
When I unveiled this blog a week ago Monday, I stated that my goal is to add to my blog at least once a day. So far, I've added fresh items two or three times every weekday. In fact, I've added three more since writing on this topic of uninformed critics.
Readers can see them all and keep up to date with fresh ones by going directly to my blog at:
http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/opinion-m...
Or consider adding that link to your favorites!
Greg Peck
Jun 18, 2009 at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
What baffled me most about the comment was this last statement: "Just another example of the Democratic Party."
+
What is that all about? How did Mr. Seifried's letter and the subsequent news article give any indication that they were motivated by one party or another?
Jun 18, 2009 at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mr. Peck, I can assure you don't have a corner on the market when it comes to critics! Try being a dealer in "hope" once! It's the one thing people need most today, yet, when you try and reach out to these people...the flood gates open! Most people run for that security zone that's gotten them the results they have in life right now and the "uninformed" take great pleasure in mocking those reaching out to help people. It's the AGE of Information now. Information at the speed of thought and a great deal of it is negative and/or bad information. Thus, people today becoming more and more "misinformed" rather than just "uninformed"! This was an enlightening article by you. Thanks for that.
Jun 18, 2009 at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Good piece, Mr. Peck. Though we differ a bit regarding the ban, it's nice to see that there still are people around who are happy to meet in the middle. I know of one village in the area - and one Congress - that could benefit from such an inclination of compromise.
bobb1951: I don't think he was insinuating that the disagreement on the ban was the result of being "misinformed." I think he was talking about the letter-writer's assumption that he (Mr. Peck) was involved in the story about Mr. Seifried.
Jun 18, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
kiowamohican, ironic, isn't it, that in your post about spell checks, you commit one of the most common gramatical errors in using the wrong form of "your". "it takes all of 10 seconds to correct spelling errors if your running..." should be "it takes all of 10 seconds to correct spelling errors is you're running.."
Jun 18, 2009 at 7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mr. Peck. Another trite example of someone with a negative vision of the city whining and complaining about someone else (so-called uniformed) voicing their opinion which is their God-given right as a tax-paying citizen. Us positive people want this city to move forward. Drop the buck, serve up the beer... Just kidding. Nice article.
Jun 18, 2009 at 5:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Kiowamohican...not sure if your last post regarding people who don't use spellcheck and have bad grammar was intended to be genuine, or if it was simply brilliant satire. I suppose I can offer a benefit of the doubt here. Either way, good show.
Jun 18, 2009 at 2:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
I kind of always baffles me why people do not run spell checks when firing off an e-mail, or blog entry? Not that I am any grammar afficionado, but it takes all of 10 seconds to correct spelling errors if your running the right software on your PC. If one is to give a good rant, at least sound educated and professional in your opinion.
.
I never see any problem in an anonymous posting or e-mail. That was always the cop out reply I use to get on various blogs I posted on in the past. In which I then began to end every post made with my first, middle, and last name.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.