Thursday, February 09, 2006

The Mink Responds - Bizarre Man Bizarre

I exchanged emails with Mr. Mink today and he found my description of his article as being an "attack" on subscribers and those who felt he and the Post had done a very poor job on the Mohammed cartoon story in short "bizarre". See that post below. I found his response bizarre and explained why his article was in fact an attack on the Post subscribers.

Here is a link to the full Mink article: Freedom to publish— and not to publish

Here is why I say The Mink attacked - lashed out at the Post subscribers:

Mink: Here in the editorial department, we sometimes employ a sophisticated intellectual shorthand to summarize complex situations and arcane concepts.

( that is very condescending - the editorial department has intellectual powers and can use it in the short hand version - you & I are dumb as he said and lacking the editorial abilities to understand this complicated matter - disrespectful hubris from an Op-Ed Editor on a very serious matter and he is mocking everyone including non-Post editorial staff )

Mink: So permit me — in addressing the current controversy over newspaper publication of images of Mohammed, the prophet of Islam — this sophisticated, intellectual observation: “Riots bad; freedom good.”

( Mink identifies the point - issue that he will address in this article which is: why the Post did not publish the Mohammed cartoons or really report or comment on it at all - the Post did not publish or cover because the riots that had already occurred were bad and they did not want to at this point be a footnote )

Mink: Having made the obvious points,

(Mink's obvious points are that to publish or report on the Mohammed cartoons are dumb and so are those who think the Post should have published such items)

Mink: I can’t decide who’s dumber: those who believe that beating people and torching buildings honor Mohammed and his teachings or those who believe there’s something honorable about insulting someone else’s religion simply to prove that they can.

( you are dumber than those burning down embassies if you wanted this story covered or the cartoons published - insulting someone else's religion simply to prove that we(St. Louis Post Dispatch)can - clearly Mink's thoughts that the Post should not publish the cartoons or even report on it )

Mink: If a government controls what can and cannot be distributed, it’s called censorship. If a media outlet decides for itself what to include and exclude from its products — whether for journalistic or economic reasons, out of respect for possible sensitivities of some readers or concern about possible impact on its community — it’s called editorial judgment.

( if media decides for economic reason or journalistic reasons not to publish it is not censorship it is in fact editorial judgment - Mink and the Post are afraid to publish the story and are not covering a very important story because they are capitulating )

No Mr. Mink you lashed out and attacked those who feel correctly that you and the Post capitulated on this story. Spin as you will, but it is without a doubt a "full press capitulation" on your part and the St. Louis Post Dispatch.......................................................

The St. Louis Post is discussing this matter on their blog under the God Blog