22 February 2007

A response to my critics

I'm always grateful to those of you who take the time to comment on my writings. It only seems fair that I respond to some of your thoughts.

I took some flak for criticizing Don Young's speech on Iraq. I agree it's a non-binding resolution; regardless, I assume that his comments were reflective of his opinion on the issue. If so, my point was that they should be accurate and well-reasoned, as befits such a serious issue. Misquoting people, mis-pronouncing words, and more may be Don Young's style but they do a disservice to the people he represents. And do you really think that people he disagrees with should be hanged?

I was criticized for criticizing Sarah Palin's non-decision and confusion on where the Habitat Division should be located in state government. I respect the comments in this case quite a bit but I think this is an important issue, it came up during the campaign so we should expect Sarah Palin to have made up her mind on the matter, and it's a fairly straight-forward yes-or-no issue. I just thought the confusion was an example of trying to have it as many ways as possible at once and I just wish she'd tell us what she thinks for once.

I was also told in the same comments that I shouldn't expect Sarah to respond to my every beck and call for an interview. I agree with that (though I've always wished the social power of journalists was stronger) but I think I'm generally frustrated with Palin because I sense she has been generally keeping herself cloistered from the press. All I want to do is help her spread her message to the masses but when she only releases news by press release, it's awfully hard to do that. Instead, I just get frustrated.

Speaking of getting frustrated, a potentially pre-emptive response: I titled my post on the ADN's Senior Care story "Shoddy Reporting" when I spent most of my time talking about the Palin administration's media campaign. I still think the reporting could have been more far-reaching but I perhaps should have titled it "Normal Reporting" (or not made any reference to the reporting) since I can't expect every reporter to be aware of every issue in the state since I certainly am not.

When I posted the new lawyer's comments on a night in Nome, one person said it wasn't fair to do so. I ultimately agreed, after Wes asked me to take them down. I did so because they weren't my words and they had made their way around town anyway.

Other comments thought that Wes might have had some truth to his thoughts. I hope I never implied otherwise because I think in some ways Wes was honestly describing what he has seen and what I have seen. What I hope Wes learns, however, is that there is so much more to Nome than meets his eye. I hope he hasn't judged Nome based on that one experience.

Thanks, as always, for reading and commenting. Mine are just the musings of an interested observer but I'm deeply gratified when you take them seriously and keep the conversation going, even (and especially) if you are offended or disagree.

1 comment:

First Alaskan Man said...

My friend, I’m grateful for your writing, whether I agree or not, it gets me thinking and the folks who do respond; Coldfoot et al make for outstanding company. Thank you for your time on this blog.