I wonder if the editors of the Post-Gazette read their own paper. Because if they do, they will quickly realize that they owe their readers--and several hundred state legislators--an apology. But even more important is an immediate, open and fair assessment of how the editors use their perch at "One of America's Great Newspapers."
I don't think they will ever even consider doing any of those things. But they should. And they know it.
Background: This all goes back to the issue of secondhand smoke (SHS), of course. The editors recently used the surgeon general's report on SHS to demand an immediate ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. Unfortunately, the editors also took that opportunity to tar the reputation of any legislators opposed to the ban:
The legislators need to stop kissing the feet of these businessmen and tobacco lobbyists and focus on two points made by the surgeon general.
See, in the editor's eyes, the report was a "smoking gun." (Get it? Get it?) A report so devastating in its methodology and conclusions that anyone opposed to the newspaper's reaction had to base their opposition on allegiance to deep-pocketed lobbyists. See? In this construction, opposing the Post-Gazette equals corruption. Period.
Unfortunately, that's a big fat load of nonsense. As I pointed out here. See, there is a very good possibility the surgeon general spun the results of his own report. Or at least that's what some people think. And not just people who are bought and paid for by big tobacco. Turns out that some people--doctors who support smoking bans, even--are questioning the report.
That does not mean those people are correct. But it does mean that reasonable people can disagree. A possibility the Post-Gazette denied. I pointed that out. And I still have not seen a correction or clarification. And I still have not seen the paper offer the name of the editor who actually read the report--the actual report--as opposed to the controversial press release.
Because I don't l think anyone read it. I think they questioned the integrity of hundreds of elected officials based on a report they didn't read. Because they are on a political mission. They would get fired from the Pitt News for doing that. Yeah. It's a really, really long report. But if you are going to question the integrity of hundreds of elected officials, you might want to check out the primary sources first.
I guess their defense could be that they didn't know. That they don't read this blog. And that they don't get out much. It certainly seems plausible that they don't expose themselves to a lot of dissenting views. Unfortunate, I suppose, but fair enough. Not a lot of people do read this blog.
But do the editors read their own paper? Because if they do, they ought to be working on apologies right now.
Go here to see what I mean. The link will take you to two letters published in Sunday's paper. Letters that make it impossible for the Post-Gazette to claim that reasonable people can take issue with the surgeon general's report. One is from a doctor from Moon. A doctor who points out that despite the fact that he fully understands the dangers of tobacco, he does not think the surgeon general's report holds water.
As a citizen, I expect our government to base legislation on firm foundations. The best major studies fail to prove a causal relationship of secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer. That evidence is clear to me or any student of the secondhand tobacco smoke field. I would've hoped that our surgeon general was more informed.
So is this doctor "kissing the feet of the businessmen and tobacco lobbyists?" Has he abandoned his patients? Is he conspiring to force people to "flirt with death"? Does he operate with "tobacco stained hands"?
Why do these questions matter? Why not just chalk it up to political rhetoric? Why can't the Post-Gazette engage in a bit of hyperbole in pursuit of public health?
I'll tell you why. Go back to the link to the doctor's letter. Now look at the letter right beneath it. It's from a citizen who supports the smoking ban. Which is her right, of course. But the problem comes when you realize that she is basing her support, at least in part, on reporting and editorials she has read in the Post-Gazette. A newspaper which, instead of putting a reporter on the case and investigating the surgeon general's report, had ceded all responsibility and become a cheerleader for it.
Worse, it has become the official media organ for sullying the reputation of anyone who questions that report.
Look, there is a lot of room for debate here. Debate that should be going on in the pages of the Post-Gazette. And that's a debate we are not seeing because the paper is so busy pushing a controversial agenda instead of fulfilling it's most serious duty--informing readers.
As it stands, the paper is actually misinforming readers. If not on the accuracy of the report, which could go either way, then certainly in its depiction of people opposed to the report as sleazy politicians whose votes can be bought.
One of America's greatest newspapers? Prove it. By:
1. Revealing the name of the editor who read the actual report.
2. If no one read the actual report, apologizing to readers for doing such shoddy work.
3. Responding to the DOCTORS who question the report.
4. Explaining whether these doctors are bought and sold by Big Tobacco.
5. If not, explaining why any legislator opposed to the smoking ban has been bought and sold.
6. If upon further reporting it seems possible that some doctors can legitimately question the surgeon general's report, the paper should issue an apology for publishing an editorial that accused skeptical legislators of being corrupt.
I am not holding my breath.
Comments