Over the last month, the Longmont Daily Times-Call has had a few front page stories about graffiti in the city. These included large color pictures of the "artwork" and bio's of the "artists". There has also been no shortage of Open Forum letters and TC-Line comments about their coverage, mostly negative. I'm going to have to stand on the side of the people claiming that the Times-Call has glamorized this behavior and the people who do it.
What was May 6, 2007's editorial? " Vandalism does not make you glamorous." Really? You don't say. But wait, you did say, in so many words the opposite with your earlier coverage. So which is it, and why the change of heart? A little heat from the police? Getting the message from your readers? Has graffiti increased since your exposé's hit the stands?
I don't have a lot of sympathy here for a couple of reasons. First, these huge front page stories were not necessarily on slow news days. These seemed like pieces put together earlier sitting around waiting for a dull time to throw out there. Second, after numerous negative letters pointing out the obvious (except to the paper apparently), they put out another story making these graffiti artists seem like misunderstood saints. More negative letters followed.
Now they start their latest editorial blaming vandalism on the weather! It starts out with vandalism at a construction site, but also mentions spray paint and graffiti. It puts the "onus" on law abiding citizens to try to make vandalism harder on the criminals that commit it. How about a little onus on the criminals? How about some more onus on you, the Times-Call, to be a little more responsible with your reporting and commentary?
It gets really rich with the editorial staff asking that these "vandals should take a little pride in their community". Among other things, isn't that what makes them criminals and vandals, a lack of pride in their community? Before you point your finger at law abiding citizens, and even the vandals you've essentially glamorized, take a look in the mirror. You're part of the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It's gotta be some kind of effort to connect with younger readership, a pure financial marketing decision. Let the boomers and seniors reading the editorial hurumpf along with those thoughts while appearing open and hip to the dwindling number of teens and twenty-somethings that choose to read newspapers (out of the dwindling number that can read period)
Thanks for the post Chris. I would have preferred a call for citizen patrols to keep their eyes open and restrain anyone caught vandalizing by any means necessary until the cops showed up.
Chunky: I thought that at first too, but then the negative letters came in, then their second story, it started looking like an agenda. The editor a couple of days ago claimed subscriptions are actually up for them, even though overall mainstream media is suffering.
Dan: This is a sticky one, and I have acquaintances in the police and support them. While they do offer the citizen patrol classes, I'm not so sure how much they want still relatively untrained citizens confronting, and especially restraining, these types of people. By and large I think they know pretty much who's tagging what based on the "artwork". My point is the volume of it, and the paper making the situation worse.
I've removed the previous comment on this post. In my opinion - and it's my blog - it crossed a line and unless the person wants to give their real name when making such remarks I'm not going to keep such comments on my blog.
Post a Comment