By The Kansas City Star Editorial Board
If dreaming up future ideas for this piece of the page sounds good, consider this offer.
Twice a month, the editorial board is joined by six reader advisers to brainstorm future editorials. If opinions on local, national and international topics are your passion, and you are able to escape your workplace for two hours a month, you may be just the person for this volunteer post.
Apply to join the fifth annual Editorial Board reader advisory panel. The post comes with added opportunities: We hope every panelist will augment the twice monthly meetings by frequently contributing individual opinions to the Midwest Voices blog, voices.kansascity.com.
We seek individuals from varied backgrounds, with opinions that differ from our own and expertise in fields outside journalism. The goal is simple: These pages benefit from more minds/insights/opinions around the table.
To apply, send us a brief bio with your home and work address, describe your political persuasion, list five editorial ideas (summaries only) you’d like to see in print and email it to , with Reader Adviser Applicant in the subject line.
Or send applications by mail to Editorial Page, The Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, MO. 64108. (To bring new voices to the table, we decline to consider elected or appointed public officials or relatives of Star employees.)
Deadline for applicants is July 22. We’ll announce the new panel in August. Spread the word.
Delicious
Digg
Speaking of editing and censorship.........
What are we to conclude from the removal of the 5 or 6 most recent posts on the blog? They have been, for the last two years, prominently displayed near the top of the right column.
It is likely IMO, that the "suits" at the Star have, in their never ending pursuit of a more perfect world, deemed that format to be too "open", too inciting, too contributory to contentious dialogue........what do you think?
Ah, Chazzy . . .
Regarding your not applying, heavy sigh. Our loss.
Regarding the censorship, Interface confirms your assertion and the right-leaners. All sides weighing in, it's gotta be real. Hmmmmm. If vitriol is down and discussion is up, I am hard pressed to dislike it. On the other hand, censorship puts me on edge. There are many issues where the "slippery slope" metaphor is misapplied, but with regard to censorship, I think it's appropriate. That said, I, for one, am more likely to participate if the vitriol is kept at bay. Hmmmmm, again.
Your ideology is showing, HRW
Conservatives do indeed dominate "talk radio". That is a result of business competition, not ideology.....remember that when Rush started back in 88, AM radio was a dwindling wasteland. Talk radio makes absolutely no pretense of being in the news business....it's entertainment in a dynamic and fast paced marketplace.
The overwhelming editorial dominance of the left in mainstream media outlets is undeniable and well documented by even those who are proponents (like WAPO and NPR) of the proclivity.
Comparing the bias and ideology issues of the 2 markets (news & entertainment) is a false and disingenuous comparison of apples and golf clubs.
Don't think so, Debra SY........
... 2) I would hope you would apply for a post and let your more reasoned side prevail. It doesn't sound like an enormous time commitment.
....3)This censorship stuff, if it is real, is new. Last year, when I was participating, the Star was too understaffed to edit for content.... It's not my experience that you fabricate. It's also not my experience, however, that the Star censors content. So I will have to remain on the fence for the time being.
1.) No, I am not.
2.) I am dominated by my "reasoned side". We both know that only a single, certain, herein unnamed source elicited my outbursts of acerbic, caustic vitriol. In retrospect it still seems rational.....am I wrong?
3.) I will nut insult you by asking again that you simply "believe me" regarding the censor/edit issue. Still, I personally know it be true. When you couple the experience of Mr. Balano (as posted this morning) to my couple of occurances, it makes the prospect of participating with those I hold in such low regard a less than comfortable one. I could tolerate "rejection with cause"....just not the undiscussed, scurrulous edit.
Good to see you back on line again
Bird Brains
Dear George: It is fine to believe in civil discourse and even practice such discourse. But, it is incorrect to believe that there are necessarily two or more sides to every issue and that all of us should at all times be empathetic to another's viewpoint. In the US we have come or are coming to the point at which the differences that exist are between those who reason and those who act only on impulse, emotion, misstatement, and inability to determine fact from an unsupported and often unsupportable opinion. Many of the posts at MV are examples of this. Reason versus unreason is not a "left" or "right" issue. One can hardly consider the left at the time of the Reign of Terror as reasonable nor can one consider the Beer Hall Putsch and the eventual rise of Hitler as an example of reason on the right. There are times in history and in countries when reason has to confront unreason through argument and, perhaps, even being a bit uncivil but accurate in statement. Reasonable moderates are too often defenseless when assaulted verbally or even physically by right wing bullyboys. (See Eric Weitz, Weimar Germany, Princeton, 2007). This defenseless arises from a misunderstanding of civility. It is correct to treat all as you would want to be treated, but this does not require a milquetoast response when this principle is violated willfully and repeatedly by others. Perhaps, the best way to deal with these uncivil and “fowl-mouthed” posters is through ridicule. These birds of a feather flock together making easy targets, their comments facilitate parody through garrulous repetition, and they are bird brains who are obviously absurd when called to account. Comments made opposed to these pigeons should not be deleted without their comments also being deleted. A significant concern is that the acid in their droppings will damage our environment.
I believe a review by you and others at the Star of postings at this site and, specifically, on this topic should be very disturbing. What is it that MV and the Star are attempting to achieve through a group of reader advisers? Is this represented by the posters here and even one in particular who advertises himself as a hanger-on adviser? Perhaps, your adviser board is not a worthwhile endeavor and should be discontinued altogether.
Ross - and here they are soliciting new advisors
I'm sure we will get a new crop of mouthpieces. I know that people have to make a living, but I gotta believe that McClanahan finds it real difficult to work in that environment. I'm not asking for details, but since you were there, am I close?
Yes
Interface doesn't just insult people (much) anymore and does't post much either since there is not much sbustance in Interface's posts other than insults.
not censorship
We've all seen personal attacks deleted -- as far as I can tell, it's simply a measure to keep discourse more civil. I'm supportive so long as it's applied across the board, which it seems to have been so far.
The ones complaining the loudest seem to be the ones w/ the least substantive comments to contribute, and who come on just to sling mud.
We've actually had an uptick in substantive conversation over the past couple of weeks.
Second
Wouldn't it be funny to be a fly-on-the-wall for their first meeting?
I second the nomination.
So, Chazzy . . .
Back to the original intent of this thread. You going to submit your name?
I think we are in agreement, there is great value in conversation representing broad views, including the oft forgotten libertarian vantage point. I abhor some of the crud I have read on this blog, however, and you seem capable of tolerating it and even playing around in it. I would hope you would apply for a post and let your more reasoned side prevail. It doesn't sound like an enormous time commitment.
You may have noticed, I've been on leave for quite a while. When I read about the call for advisory board members in the print version, I just had to look this up. I also had to jump in when I saw the direction the thread was heading. Yeesh.
This censorship stuff, if it is real, is new. Last year, when I was participating, the Star was too understaffed to edit for content. I know they haven't added staff, but perhaps they have turned some authority over to a volunteer. It's not my experience that you fabricate. It's also not my experience, however, that the Star censors content. So I will have to remain on the fence for the time being.
At any rate, I hope you consider participating and raising the level of discourse.