What Quality of Reporting?
ByThanks to Gos for plowing the road on Jessica Bruder’s story. She claims that Young Republicans are keeping an old feud alive, but the only thing that I see keeping this so-called feud alive are stories like Bruder’s (which I won’t bother to link to. I’m afraid you’ll have to find it yourself). Her reporting, as Gos pointed out, misses the facts of the present situation by a country mile. And here I thought the phrase “All the news that’s printed to fit” only applied to the New York Times.
It makes me realize that politics probably wouldn’t have the bad reputation it does with many people if weren’t for the media’s reporting of it.
As for the feud or schism or conflict, whatever you want to call it – even the Hatfields and the McCoys settled their differences eventually. Republicans are too small a group in this town to be pitted against one another.
Remember what Ben Franklin said:
We must hang together, or we most assuredly will hang separately.
It's the end of the post, now what?
Bookmark and share to spread the word, we'd really appreciate it:
|
||
|
ReTweet: |
Join our email list: |
Subscribe to our feed: 
|
7 Comments
January 18th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Again, I’m really confused by this blog’s reaction. I think the state-affiliated club came off looking so much better than the independent club in this article. What problems do you have with the piece, exactly? What part do you think isn’t true? Are you really trying to say there is no feud? So, why haven’t I ever seen any of you at the other club’s events? If it’s all behind everyone (which it clearly isn’t), I don’t see why you don’t attend their events.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Karol,
For me the problem is that the piece was written to begin with. As I mentioned in my post the board of this club goes about its business everyday never thinking once about the other club. As a member you know the stuff we do and the work we put in to it. So you can understand our disappointment when a news source does decide to do a story they try to drum up some dirt. Why didn’t she write about the monthly socials that we successfully put on, dinners, charitable events or growth of the club? If she wanted to write about both clubs she still could have kept it positive by writing how both clubs have created an opportunity for people to listen to conservative speakers in a liberal city.
As far as why haven’t you ever seen any of us at the other club’s events, as I mentioned I’ve been to one of the other clubs events and wasn’t impressed with the product. Further as the economics person in the group, I personally like the competition. It forces you to make sure you don’t get sloppy and keeps you in tune with your members. I think the fact that there is another club is healthy and it could be argued that the split and competition is what led to our club being what it is today. Giving people a choice never hurt anyone.
I’m not upset with the other club; I’m upset with the spin from the Observer.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
I’m upset with the spin from the Observer.
…..but the Observer made you guys look really good. Dennis came off as totally above the pettiness. I just don’t get the complaining.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
I don’t know, maybe you’re right. For us though we work so hard to get noticed in this city that it’s disappointing that the Observer chooses to do a story that, whether one side came out better than the other, still attempted to make both clubs look disorganized and in chaos, which is far from the truth.
That story could have been written a dozen different ways and they chose the route that attempted to make both clubs look weak. In my opinion the article was basically trying to mock us.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Nick, well, the fact that there are two YR clubs in a city with our demographics is pretty mockable. I don’t think that’s a reflection on whether the clubs are inherently good or bad or whether they accomplish things. And the article was favorable to you guys so I’m not sure why the fuss.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:14 am
karol, you’re being repetitive and it’s cute. But you’re right. And Nick is making a good point about the story even being printed. But he is right too. And as for YRs cross-attending the YRs events, they do. At the recent social at Gstadt, I saw a number of YRs that I had seen at the December YR meeting. Members do go to both. I think it has to do with the quality of guest speakers, which both clubs do a great job scheduling. There are a few folks in the respective clubs that I’m sure still make some minor quips which is unfortunate. We’re not thirteen. We’re not that young! But for the most part, we should just enjoy the fact that two clubs invite guest speakers on two consecutive thursdays and it’s double the opportunity to hear guests.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:29 am
While I understand the passion and pride of the affiliated YR officers, I pretty much agree with Karol that much of the posts here undermine the positive image of the initial Observer article. It stands to reason that an article on both clubs would contain comments both clubs might not like. However, I think overall, Dennis came off far better in the article.
While this club does a good job acknowledging the existence of the other club, neither club does much to explain the split. As an example, the history page on our own website ignores the split. Anyone new to the clubs would naturally be curious about how two clubs came to be. I think the Observer tried their best to answer a question almost all of us have heard from new members.
Unless someone has proof this is Robert’s effort to stir the pot, I think we should be giving the Observer the benefit of the doubt, be glad for the publicity, be glad Dennis came off well, and be glad the story came out the week after Robert’s club met and the day before our club meets since someone reading the story may be drawn to one of our clubs.