Wanted: The Star is looking for six new reader advisers

I didn't think anyone complained to the higher-ups. I figured the complaints in the thread itself took care of that. No, my comment about the whiners being cowards refers to the original intent of this post. If the complainers were to show courage, in lieu of complaining, they would apply to become reader advisers. It takes no courage to complain: to say, "conservatives need not apply." Or to revel in the financial troubles that the Star and most print media are suffering.

It takes courage to meet regularly with others of varying opinions, where one will be challenged. It takes courage to create thoughtful posts and not merely make snide comments about the posts of others. It takes courage to try to help shape and add dimension to journalism, instead of clinging to some misplaced pride, self-identifying as outcast without even trying to make a difference. It takes courage to contribute to the marketplace of ideas.

I believe we can all use Debra's post as a small lab regarding the odious nature of how we are all impacted by the activity.

Multiple lenses see different things: where Debra sees the cons that "got me censored", one might see a hypocrite who refused to accept responsibility for her inflammotory posting while a third sees a manipulative editorial staff "using" Debra as a foil and the fourth sees a likely false assumption from Debra that someone complained to the higher ups. There are many more interpretations that would be viable....but you get the idea, I am sure.....incuding combinations.

LAB CLOSED

Sorry Debra, for using your post as fodder for a meaningful and worthwhile exercise in opening the insidious can of worms that the Star has been complicit in making, packaging and presenting to the readers and bloggers here.

My original post got deleted! All you conservatives pour yourself a beer. You did it! Ya got me censored. I still think you are cowards. It takes no courage to complain; it does to contribute.

Your statement below clarifies several matters. I apologize if I commented incorrectly about your original post.

I don't know about censorship, but editing is a necessary evil of publishing. As a Midwest Voice, there were many times my head hit the desk with regard to editing. There were times I thought they made me look foolish. (No need to jump in with a comment, You-know-who-you-are, I'm reading your mind.) There were times they made me terse, when sensitivity was in order. On one essay, they pared out most of the meaning in order to make room for what I thought was a meaningless piece of art. Toward the end, although they had told us to submit up to 700 words, I was only giving them 630, or thereabouts, to avoid having them remove what I thought was "the good stuff." AND don't get me started on their idea of headlines. Good Lord.

This is standard operating procedure, however, for editorial/op-ed writing. The editor gets the last word. I can say, that of the five pieces I submitted, I think I was content with the editing on one. All of this kvetching, however, is not to say that process was meaningless and that I wouldn't recommend it. In fact, I would recommend it heartily to anyone of any political stripe. You will learn more about yourself, your writing and how others view your writing. What a treasure (if sometimes hard to take)!

Now, all of that said, this isn't the call for Midwest Voices. That happens in November. This is the call for Reader Advisers, which, to my thinking, is less risky. You only post on line, you attend meetings, you quietly and anonymously affect the agenda of this publication. Again, I would challenge the nay-sayers to take up the gauntlet. Have the courage to put a name, and possibly a face, to your thoughts. Have the courage to enter a room where not everyone agrees with you. I broke bread with Tom, Juanelle and Ross, and never suffered a black eye, and neither did they. Don't let them tell you otherwise.

All of Ross's comments yesterday were deleted. Pretty slimy of Yael if you ask me. Yet re-read all the comments on this thread and see which ones make the cut and which ones didn't.

Absolutely reeks.

So someone explain to me (which is the original topic of this thread) why should anyone who doesn't hold the same views of the Star's editorial board apply?

Art, I won’t bother to re-post the original because I have no reason to think that it would not be deleted again but I can tell you that I did not mention any misuse of funds. My only mention of money was when I suggested that an agreement was made on the smoking ban to exempt the casinos so that they would not use their resources to mount a large campaign against the then proposed smoking ban. The thinking being that the casinos had enough money to perhaps jeopardize the passing of the ban.

One thing I forgot to mention regarding the smoking ban vote also. While researching that proposed law, I noticed that the exemption was for the “gaming floors” of the casinos. I took the time to look up the legal definition of gaming floor and found that it included more than just the areas where the gambling goes on. I found that it included the area on the paths in and out of the building as well. I felt that that the pro-ban people were misleading the voters on this issue and I included it in a comment I wrote for this blog. Yael personally cut that paragraph despite my protests and showing him the legal definition I looked up. Of course, the proposed ordinance passed and became law. Then guess what; low and behold, the casinos, citing the legal definition of gaming floor were allowing smoking in many more areas than what we would think of as gaming areas. The city council had to amend the ordinance to correct the “oversight.” Yael refused to reply when I wrote him saying, “I told you so.”

Yes, in my opinion, there is censorship by the editorial board when it suits them.

Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008

We are clearly not thinking about the same post. So, you may very well be correct on this one.

I believe that you are wrong here. The deleted post was SOLELY about his personal experiences with the edit/censorship issue.

As I recall and I could be wrong, the post in question included assertions about other's misuse of funds, etc. I don't know what point Balano is attempting to make about the vote. I guess his belief is that one's political opinions must necessarily be linked to the content of a newspaper. If that is the case, I suggest that a few courses in journalism might help him along.