Editor’s Note: A story is a story

As I get older, I’ve found myself growing more intolerant of intolerance. The differences in people are what make them unique and the choices they make are their own, so long as they don’t harm anyone else. That’s my basic philosophy of life, I guess.

That’s why the calls and notes I received following our publication of a story on a Monroe gay couple’s civil union ceremony so disconcerting. There were cancelations of the paper and some choice words offered — including one letter writer who essentially compared me to the wicked of Sodom — but that’s fine. We ran the story because it was a good story on an important topic.

And I’d do it again next week.

What troubles me, however, is the level of vitriol — the hatred out there for people just trying to live their lives. Their union has no impact on the rest of us. It is no threat to my marriage, nor do I suspect it threatens anyone else’s. (That the state has not seen fit to call civil unions marriage is a travesty and another example of the Legislature’s unwillingness to lead.)

Frank and Stephen love each other and their love makes the world a better place. Can the same be said about Brittney and Kevin? Or about any of the other five-minute marriages that have become a Hollywood staple?

But I digress. The issue that came up was about my politics and whether it affects what I assign and where I place it. Essentially, I was accused of having an agenda.

Here, in it’s entirety, is the Editor’s Note I wrote as a response for today’s edition of The Cranbury Press:

A story is a story

Angry readers are a given in the newspaper business.

After all, not everything we do casts everyone in a positive light and not everyone might agree with the positions we take on the Town Forum page.

Politicians, for instance, tend not to like stories that raise questions about their actions or shed light on their failures. And I’ve lost count of the calls and e-mails I’ve received over the years regarding my criticism of the president and the Iraq War.

So it shouldn’t have surprised me that some readers took offense at a story on Monroe’s first civil union that ran on Page 1 of last week’s paper.

The piece, which included a Page 1 photo and several photos on the jump page, told the story of Stephen Lourie and Frank Pisciotta’s 30-year relationship and their decision to take advantage of the state’s new civil union law.

I received several calls complaining about the story — one called it “garbage” — and a handful of readers canceled their subscription.

One sent me this note, which is probably representative of the negative comments I’d received:

“I just canceled my subscription and I hope many more do! When The Cranbury Press sees fit to announce on the front page about a bunch of homosexual old men
it’s time to go. There are so many more important things going on in our community but it’s obvious you have another agenda other than reporting on what people really care about.”

Nearly everyone accused the paper, or me directly, of having an agenda, of using the news columns to push my point of view.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, I believe that gays and lesbians should have the right to marry — as I’ve written in my Dispatches column on numerous occasions. I believe a lot of things, but I never let my political beliefs color my news choices.

Iraq is an example. I have been a vocal critic of the Iraq War, but that has not prevented us from running stories on returning soldiers who remain supportive of the mission — most recently in February, when former Jamesburg Borough Councilman Carlos Morales returned from a five-month tour of duty in southern Iraq. The Morales story ran up front because it was an important news story with a local angle.

It is the same reason that we assigned the civil union story that ran on Page 1: It was news. It was the first civil union in Monroe under the state’s new and controversial civil union law.

It was that simple. No agenda, just a commitment to presenting the news — even if it makes some readers angry.

Let me know if you agree.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Runner’s diary, Friday

Mixed things up a bit today. Did my three miles (actually, a little more) at the end of a workout that included some weights and a couple of new wrinkles — two miles on the stationary bike and 1,000 meters on the rowing machine — that I’ll be trying including in my workout over the next few weeks.

The run, though, remains most important as I slowly train for the 18-mile LBI run in October.

The run: Three miles in 25:36 (3.1, a 5K, in 26:21 ) — a shocking 8:32 pace, shocking because of yesterday’s seven-mile run. I basically decided to leave it all on the treadmill, so to speak.

Today’s iPod selection: Bob Dylan’s Love and Theft.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

A threat to the constitution

Dan Froomkin hits the nail on the head in his White House Watch column in The Washington Post.

The president’s “offer to make senior aides available for private interviews about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys” fails the smell test because “it would deny the public any reliable record of what was said.”

It would remove the pressure from senior aides, most notably White House political guru Karl Rove, to come clean on their involvement in the firings — while denying the public an opportunity to assess their veracity.

And it would make Congress a party to keeping important information obscured from the kind of public scrutiny that comes when journalists and bloggers have a chance to untangle the skillful evasions so common to this White House.

This is a president who likes to tightly control the little bit of information that gets out there and an administration that has engaged in bullying of critics (the Plame leak), has pushed lies and distortions — all to defend its distorted notion of executive priviledge and power.

It is because of this kind of behavior that George W. Bush’s presidency will go down in history as the one that posed the most serious threat to the Constitution.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Tony Snow, constitutional scholar

The title of this post is actually a line from Josh Marshall’s blog post on Tony Snow’s press conference this morning. Here’s an update from him. I like the first post better.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here.