Many moons ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer unjustly accused Philadelphia City Councilman Frank Rizzo (the son of the former mayor and police commissioner) of using his radio show which used to air on WWDB in these parts for purposes of promoting himself and his favorite issues. I objected in a letter to the Inquirer at the time because nothing could have been further from the truth (we're talking about a period from between 1998-2000 here, by the way). Even though Rizzo is a Republican, he was genuinely trying to provide constituent service.
However, if Rizzo had used the show as his personal squawk box (as his father had done on radio station WHAT some time in the '80s and early '90s - I believe that was the station), then I would have conceded the Inquirer's point.
I'm recalling this bit of history because Inquirer staff writer Amy Worden noted in her column today something I and others had pointed out earlier, namely, that the Inquirer is currently negotiating with Little Ricky Santorum for a twice-monthly column (I guess this makes a weird kind of sense, given the fact that local radio station WBCB grants a forum to Mike Fitzpatrick's former campaign spokesperson Pat Wandling, all the better for kicking off Mikey's '08 campaign, I guess, as I noted).
Well then, my question is this: isn't the Inquirer just recreating its supposed ethical dilemma as stated in the Rizzo case with Little Ricky this time around? Won't Santorum then be granted column space in large part to promote his own pet causes in the event that he runs for office again (and Little Ricky will have the option of going after the PA governor's office, and though Arlen Specter is making noises like he's going to run again in 2010, Santorum could go after that also if Specter decides to bow out).
And I love Editorial Page Editor Chris Satullo's response that he's looking for a "Democratic" columnist along with Santorum. I don't think it's legal to require someone to define their voting preference on condition of tendering employment.
Yes, I know that's snarky, but I'm tired of this stupid notion that you can present someone from the reality perspective and someone from the crazy perspective as mass media "communicators" and thus consider your media entity (newspaper, magazine, radio broadcast, T.V. show, web site, whatever...) as "balanced."
The Inquirer was close to getting it right many years ago in the Rizzo case (but again, though they were right in principle, they were wrong on the issue because, in my experience, councilman-at-large Rizzo is anything but a demagogue). However, they've obviously forgotten that history in the "new dawn" of the Bruce Toll - Brian Tierney era.
The only good thing I can think of about this, though, is that, between Smerky, Ferris, Jonathan Last and now Little Ricky, the Stinky Inky will give me lots of posting material (and on an unrelated note, I plan to be out of sick bay in just a bit and concocting more rambling, confrontational posts shortly).
No comments:
Post a Comment