Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Headlines Take Different Path to Bradley Manning Verdict

Same Story, Different Entry Points

As the alerts rolled out after the verdict on WikiLeaker Bradley Manning was delivered, news outlets alerted mobile and online users in different ways that caught your attention if not provided the full picture.
There was The Washington Post, which said "Army Pfc. Bradley Manning acquitted of aiding the enemy." But there was the "but" part of the verdict that was omitted.
That part was the hed for the AP version: "Manning convicted of 5 espionage counts in WikiLeaks case," though the lede started out with the acquittal on the most serious charge.
The New York Times, on the other hand, went all Solomonic for its alert: "Manning Not Guilty of Aiding the Enemy, but Convicted of Multiple Other Counts."
And those multiple counts count. If Manning had been convicted of aiding the enemy he would have faced life in prison without parole. But the five other convictions could put him away for up to 130 years. Manning will begin to get an idea of just how long he will get up close and personal with his cell tomorrow, when his sentencing hearing starts.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Jew Just Don't Get It, Dave Adlerstein

Jewish Editor in Florida Still in Denial Over Anti-Semitic Crack From Local Pol

There's a time when you have to take your lumps and admit that you're wrong. Dave Adlerstein has the lumps part down cold. As for being wrong? Well, let's just say he has a way to go on that account.

Adlerstein is the city editor of the Apalachicola & Carabelle Times, a small weekly in northwest Florida, where he has parked himself for the last dozen years.

As we wrote on Monday, Adlerstein quoted Franklin County commissioner Cheryl Sanders during a debate over salaries as saying:

“Today’s not the day to do it,” said Sanders. “We’re her (for Nabors’ salary), not to be up here jewing over somebody’s pay. I can’t believe that you all would put a man down who has worked here for 26 years because he don’t have a high school education.”

It was bad enough that Sanders said what she did and some people were caught by surprise that Adlerstein used the quote directly. As he should have. But what's gave this story legs are comments Adlerstein made to Jim Romenesko about why, as a Jew, he wasn't hurt by the remark.

"It doesn’t offend me, unless it’s used to describe someone who cheats you. But haggling and dickering? To me, it’s a proud trait of my tribe, and it’s a solid cut above cold-hearted stiffing someone with a pious grin."

Understandably, Adlerstein came under fire by commenters on Romenesko's blog (including me) for either being disingenuous or completely clueless. You'd think that upon further reflection he'd realize that there was something wrong about what he--and Sanders--said. Guess again.

As he told Annie Groer of The Washington Post yesterday the remark is "not being used as an anti-Semitic crack. If that sounds like I’m an apologist, that is not me. I am not a self-hating Jew and I am not an ignorant Jew who is unaware of the pain of my people.”

Really?

Adlerstein tried to show Groer he knows anti-Semitism when he hears it, because his father was head of the Anti-Defamation League in Columbus, Ohio. But that only makes his defense of Sanders  even worse.

When Adlerstein says "jewing" is not an "anti-Semitic crack," then what the hell is it? Throw out his lame rationale that it has an analog with "haggling and dickering" and you're left with only one choice. It's only a part of the vernacular among people who don't like Jews. Or just don't know any better. Or both.

Sanders, of all people, realizes this. “It was a bad choice of words and it should not have been made," the Tallahassee Democrat reported. "In no way, shape or form did I mean it to be derogatory or negative, and so I just want to make an apology for that.”

Putting aside the question of what did she mean "jewing" to be if not "derogatory or negative," Sanders, at least, realizes it was a dumb thing to say even during a heated debate.  It's time for Adlerstein to do the same and become aware of the pain of his people.





Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Cruise Ad Sails Too Close for Comfort at Conde Nast Traveler

Placement for Norwegian Haven Promo a Little Too Convenient

I've long been a reader of Conde Nast Traveler for its mix of solid reporting, useful advice (thanks, always, Wendy Perrin) and articles about destinations that transport me to my recurring win-Powerball daydream.

One reason is CN Traveler takes its slogan "Truth in Travel" seriously. There's a strict no-junket policy. If a writer went somewhere, the magazine picked up the tab (lucky writer). In the August issue (not yet online), there's an intriguing article about how some cruise lines are creating ships-within-a-ship for passengers who pay handsomely to sail in a premium section closed off to the hordes on the Lido Deck.

One such sanctuary is called The Haven (left)  on Norwegian Cruise Line. So, it was a little curious and somewhat dispiriting to see in the August issue an article, in part, about The Haven experience, paired up with an advertorial about, natch, The Haven.

Now, to be fair, CN Traveler is always filled with special advertising sections and advertorials. It's how you pay for a reporter and photographer to do proper justice to the Himalayan temples of Nepal (p. 74). Even so, editorial and advertising should have put their heads together a little more effectively on the placement for this promo.

To be sure, writer Christian Wright's account of her experience in The Haven, which she contrasted with a stay in the more-egalitarian part of the ship was hardly an unqualified rave. Far from it. But the ad should have had some distance from her dispatch, otherwise readers can't help but wonder exactly whose truth is being told.


Monday, July 15, 2013

Editor Insists Anti-Semitic Remarks OK When It's Your Neighbors Making Them

Oy, Go Away

Jim Romenesko has an item today about how an editor at a Florida weekly raised some eyebrows when he directly quoted one official making an anti-Semitic remark at a county commissioners meeting.

During a discussion over the salary for the new head of the Franklin County road department, chair Cheryl Sanders said:

“Today’s not the day to do it,” said Sanders. “We’re her (for Nabors’ salary), not to be up here jewing over somebody’s pay. I can’t believe that you all would put a man down who has worked here for 26 years because he don’t have a high school education.”

This, according to the account written by city editor David Adlerstein of the Apalachicola & Carabelle Times. Adlerstein. As in Jew.

It wasn't that Adlerstein got the remark wrong. He had it on tape. A few readers, he told Romenesko, were startled that he used it, even though it was a direct quote of an official. But here's the part that gets me scratching. As he told Romenesko in an email:

“I have heard the expression on more than one occasion around these parts in my dozen years at the paper. It doesn’t offend me, unless it’s used to describe someone who cheats you. But haggling and dickering? To me, it’s a proud trait of my tribe, and it’s a solid cut above cold-hearted stiffing someone with a pious grin. But that’s me."

Damn right, that's you. I find Adlerstein's response, as a member of said tribe, more offensive than what Sanders uttered. It's one thing to spend 12 years editing a weekly newspaper in the Florida Panhandle, where Jews are badly outnumbered, and become inured to remarks from the idiots among the populace, elected or no. But if you're truly proud of your tribe, Dave, then you would know that "jewing" is not a verb that has entered the lexicon as a synonym for "haggling and dickering." At least, not by those who aren't anti-Semitic.

And since when was the fine art of haggling confined to Jews? Anyone who visits a bazaar in Turkey, the night markets in Hong Kong, hell, a flea market anywhere in this country knows better. Adlerstein needs to get out more.  He can use some enlightenment, along with Sanders.